A114 174 PDF

Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)
Section 4D, AY 2016-2017

San Beda College Manila
J. Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TREASON does not remove the case from the jurisdiction of this Court which under the
(Art. 114, RPC) law is authorized and called upon to review the decision though unappealed.
Consequently, the withdrawal of the appeal in this case could not serve to
CASE 1: PEOPLE v. PEDRO VILLANUEVA (Busine) render the decision of the People's Court final. The decision imposing the
G.R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958 death penalty, the judgment of conviction entered in the trial court is not
En banc final, and cannot be executed and is wholly without force or effect until the
case has been passed upon by the Supreme Court en consulta; that
Doctrine: Automatic review by the Supreme Court of decisions imposing the although a judgment of conviction is entered by the trial court, said decision
death penalty is something which neither the court nor the accused could has none of the attributes of a final judgment and sentence; that until it has
waive or evade. been reviewed by the Supreme Court which finally passes upon it, the same
is not final and conclusive; and that this automatic review by the Supreme
Facts: Pedro T. Villanueva was sentenced to death by the Fifth Division of the Court of decisions imposing the death penalty is something which neither the
defunct People's Court for the crime of treason. Villanueva appealed the case court nor the accused could waive or evade.
under the provisions of Section 9 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court which
provides mandatory review by this Tribunal of all decisions or judgments of CASE 2: PEOPLE vs. FILEMON DELGADO (Cerda)
the lower courts imposing death penalties. G.R. No. L-1446 March 4, 1949
Meantime, it was discovered that the transcript of stenographic notes taken Doctrine: Treason cannot be complexed.
down, before the People's Court was missing and unavailable, by reason of
which and upon recommendation of the Solicitor General, the case was Facts: During the month of July 1944 in Talisay, Cebu, a Japanese Navy truck
remanded to the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the retaking of the missing and a train coach operated by the Japanese troops were ambushed by the
testimonies of the four witnesses who testified before the People's Court. resistance and guerrilla forces. As a measure of reprisal on July 29, 1944, a
mass arrest or concentration of the male inhabitants of Dolho, Talisay,
Appellant filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo praying that Mambaling and Basak was effected.
he be allowed to withdraw his appeal so as to avail himself of the benefits of Many Japanese soldier accompanied by Filipino spies and undercover men
the Executive clemency granted to all prisoners convicted of treason, including among them the appellant Filemon Delgado rounded up a great number of
those whose cases were pending appeal, on condition that such appeals be men some through arrests other by invitation.
first withdrawn. Whereupon the Court of First Instance of Iloilo returned the
case to the SC for whatever action it may take in view of the withdrawal Victims – Tereso Sanchez, Jose dela Cerna and Antonio dela Cerna
requested, for, at all events, the case had to be reviewed by us regardless of
defendant's appeal. On that day Tereso Sanchez a guerrilla soldier and Antonio dela Cerna were
arrested in Mambaling, and were transferred to the Basak schoolhouse where
Issue: Whether or not the appeal may be allowed to be withdrawn they found hundred of men among them Jose de la Cerna and Fidencio
Delgado and it was there where they saw the appellant armed with a revolver
Ruling: An accused appealing from a decision sentencing him to death may and other Filipino undercover men working with and helping the Japanese
be allowed to withdraw his appeal like any other appellant in an ordinary soldiers tying up the hands of those arrested investigation and torturing them
criminal case before the briefs are filed, but his withdrawal of the appeal in order to obtain information about the guerrillas and about firearms they were
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
suspected of possessing. Jose dela Cerna as well as Antonio dela Cerna and the Japanese air field in Cebu and later delivered to the Constabulary
the others were maltreated by defendant Filemon Delgado. Fidencio Delgado for custody
was himself tied up but he was released when he happened to mention that  It was not him but rather another person with the same name
his surname was Delgado.
Ruling of the Trial Court
The following day, Tereso Sanchez and Antonio dela Cerna were taken to the Filemon Delgado was charged with treason under five counts was found guilty
mountain of Toong. The Japanese together with defendant were shooting to under four counts of "the crime of treason complexed with the crime of murder"
death those who insisted that they did not have any firearm, as such, Antonio and sentenced to death penalty by electrocution with all the accessories of the
dela Cerna told his captors that he indeed have a revolver and so, he was law.
separated. However, Tereso who had no firearm to surrender and neither did
he make any pretense that he had one was told by appellant to turn around Solicitor General’s argument
which he did and Filemon Delgado immediately fired at him hitting him on the The offense committed is simple treason citing the doctrine laid down by this
back of the head on the occipital region the bullet coming out thru left eyes. Court in the case of People vs. Prieto (80 Phil., 138) but accompanied by the
As he fell to the ground the appellant pushed him down into a ravine. because aggravating circumstance under article 14 paragraph 21, of the Revised Penal
he still moving down below some undercover men fired parking shots at Code and not compensated by any mitigating circumstance and he
wounding him in the back. Miraculously, Sanchez did not die. recommends the imposition of the penalty of death.
Another Victim – Leonardo, Eduardo Oano and Patricio Suico Issue: Whether or not defendant Filemon Delgado should be held liable for
treason complexed with murder
In August 1944, Leonardo when arrested and taken to his house found
defendant together with other undercover men and Japanese soldiers. Ruling: The Court ruled that appellant may be convicted only of treason
Leonardo and Patricio (suspected to be a lieutenant of volunteer guards) were and that the killing and infliction of Physical injuries committed by him may not
hanged and beaten with wooden sticks then they were taken back to the be separated from the crime of treason but should be regarded as acts
house of Leonardo where they were guarded and their hands were tied. performed in the commission of treason, altho, as stated in said case the
Series of beating ps and maltreatment continues until Patricio beg that he brutality with which the killing or physical injuries were carried out may be
cannot bear the torture anymore, he collapsed and fell to the ground while taken as an aggravating circumstance." The Court refer in the present case
being taken to a neighboring house. But despite his being motionless, to the manner Tereso Sanchez was shot and Patricio Suico was tortured and
defendant laid him on a sled beat him, order a fire to be built under the sled finally killed.
just below the face and buttocks, burn his face, and slashed his throat.
The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution positively pointed to and
Defenses identified the appellant not only by name but also by having actually seen
 The appellant could not have been possibly present in the arrest him and maltreated by him. As a matter of fact before the trial some of the
investigation torture and shooting committed by Japanese soldiers government witnesses had been taken to the stockade where detention
and Filipino undercover men on the inhabitants of the province of prisoners had been kept and Filemon Delgado was positively and
Cebu particularly on July 29 and August 24-25, 1944, because at the unhesitatingly identified by them.
time he was under detention in the Constabulary barracks after he
had been arrested by the Japanese forces and was made to work in CASE 3: JUAN D. CRISOLOGO v. PEOPLE (Chua)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-6277, February 26, 1954 The petition is opposed by the Solicitor General who, in upholding the
EN BANC jurisdiction of the trial judge, denies that petitioner is being subjected to double
jeopardy.
Doctrine: The decision of the Military Court constitutes a bar to further
prosecution for the same offense in Civil Courts. Contentions of the respondents:
A. The offense charged in the military court is different from that
Facts: The petitioner is a captain in the USAFFE during the last world war charged in the civil court and that even granting that the offense was
and a lieutenant colonel in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. identical the military court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the same because the People's Court had previously acquired
A information was filed against accused of treason under article 114 of the jurisdiction over the case with the result that the conviction in the
Revised Penal in the People's Court. court martial was void. It is urged that the amended information filed
in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga contains overt acts
But before the accused could be brought under the jurisdiction of the court, he distinct from those charged in the military court;
was indicted for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 408, otherwise known as B. Respondents cite the cases of Melo vs. People, 47 off. Gaz., 4631,
the Articles of War, before a military court created by the authority of the Army and People vs. Manolong, 47 Off. Gaz., 5104, where this court held:
Chief of Staff, the indictment containing three charges, two of which, the first Where after the first prosecution a new fact supervenes for which the
and third, were those of treason: defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense
a. giving information and aid to the enemy leading to the capture of and, together with the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new
USAFFE officers and men and other persons with anti-Japanese and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be second
reputation (treason) ; - found innocent jeopardy if indicted for a new offense; and
b. having certain civilians killed in time of war; and – found guilty and C. Claim that the military court had no jurisdiction over the case.
sentenced by the military court to life imprisonment.
c. urging members of the USAFFE to surrender and cooperate with the Issues:
enemy (treason). - found innocent. 1. Whether the decision of the military court constitutes a bar to further
The criminal case in the court against the petitioner was transferred to the prosecution for the same offense in the civil courts -YES ; and
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga (due to the approval of Republic Act No. 2. Whether the contentions of the respondents are meritorious-NO.
311 abolishing the People's Court) and there the charges of treason were
amplified. Ruling:
Upon arraignment, petitioner presented a motion to quash, challenging the 1. Yes. Where an act transgresses both civil and military laws subjects the
jurisdiction of the court and pleading double jeopardy because of his previous offender to punishment by both civil and military authority, a conviction or an
sentence in the military court. acquittal in a civil court cannot be pleaded as a bar to a prosecution in the
military court, and vice versa. But the rule is strictly limited to the case of a
But the court denied the motion and, after petitioner had pleaded not guilty, single act which infringes both the civil and the military law in such a manner
proceeded to trial, whereupon, the present petition for certiorari and as to constitute two distinct offenses, one of which is within the cognizance
prohibition was filed in this court to have the trial judge desist from proceeding of the military courts and the other a subject of civil jurisdiction, and it does
with the trial and dismiss the case. not apply where both courts derive their powers from the same sovereignty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It therefore, has no application to the present case the military court has B. Wrong – Respondents overlook that in the present case no new facts
convicted the petitioner and the civil court which proposes to try him again have supervened that would change the nature of the offense for which
derive their powers from one sovereignty and it is not disputed that the petitioner was tried in the military court, the alleged additional overt acts
charges of treason tried in the court martial were punishable under the specified in the amended information in the civil court having already taken
Articles of War, it being as a matter of fact impliedly admitted by the Solicitor place when petitioner was indicted in the former court.
General that the two courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the offense
charged. Of more pertinent application is the following from 15 American Jurisprudence,
56-57: Subject to statutory prohibitions and the interpretation thereof for the
It appearing that the offense charged in the military court and in the civil court purpose of arriving at the intent of the legislature enacting them, it may be said
is the same, that the military court had jurisdiction to try the case and that both that as a rule only one prosecution may be had for a continuing crime, and
courts derive their powers from one sovereignty, the sentence meted out by that when an offense charged consists of a series of acts extending over a
the military court to the petitioner should, in accordance with the precedents period of time, a conviction or acquittal for a crime based on a portion of that
above cited, be a bar to petitioner's further prosecution for the same offense period will bar a prosecution covering the whole period. In such case the
in the Court of First Instance of Zambales. offense is single and indivisible; and whether the time alleged is longer or
shorter, the commission of the acts which constitute it within any portion of the
2. NO, the contentions have no merit. time alleged, is a bar to the conviction for other acts committed within the
same time.
A. Wrong - While certain overt acts specified in the amended information in
the Zamboanga court were not specified in the indictment in the court martial, C. Wrong- Well known is the rule that when several courts have concurrent
they all are embraced in the general charge of treason, which is a continuous jurisdiction of the same offense, the court first acquiring jurisdiction of the
offense and one who commits it is not criminally liable for as many crimes as prosecution retains it to the exclusion of the others. This rule, however,
there are overt acts, because all overt acts "he has done or might have done requires that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall have first been
for that purpose constitute but a single offense." obtained by the court in which the first charge was filed.
In other words, since the offense charged in the amended information in the
The record in the present case shows that the information for treason in the
Court of First Instance of Zamboanga is treason, the fact that the said
People's Court was filed first, but petitioner had not yet been arrested or
information contains an enumeration of additional overt acts not specifically
brought into the custody of the court — the warrant of arrest had not even
mentioned in the indictment before the military court is immaterial since the
been issued — when the indictment for the same offense was filed in the
new alleged overt acts do not in themselves constitute a new and distinct
military court. Under the rule cited, mere priority in the filing of the complaint
offense from that of treason, and this Court has repeatedly held that a person
in one court does not give that court priority to take cognizance of the offense,
cannot be found guilty of treason and at the same time also guilty of overt
it being necessary in addition that the court where the information is filed has
acts specified in the information for treason even if those overt acts,
custody or jurisdiction of the person of defendant.
considered separately, are punishable by law, for the simple reason that
those overt acts are not separate offense distinct from that of treason but
Supreme Court cited two cases relevant in this case, to wit:
constitutes ingredients thereof.
1. U.S. vs. Tubig, a soldier of the United States Army in the Philippines
was charged in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga with having
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assassinated one Antonio Alivia. Upon arraignment, he pleaded Doctrine: Where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have existed as in this
double jeopardy in that he had already been previously convicted case, and it is proven that the accused voluntarily accepted an appointment
and sentenced by a court-martial for the same offense and had as an officer in that conspiracy, we think that this fact may properly be taken
already served his sentence. The trial court overruled the plea on the into consideration as evidence of his relations with the conspirators.
grounds that a the province where the offense was committed was
under civil jurisdiction, the military court had no jurisdiction to try the Facts: Appellants Francisco Bautista (BAUTISTA), Aniceto de Guzman (DE
offense. But on appeal, this court held that "one who has been tried GUZMAN) and Tomas Puzon (PUZON) were convicted in the CFI of Manila
and convicted by a court martial under circumstances giving that of the crime of conspiracy to overthrow, put down, and destroy by force the
tribunal jurisdiction of the defendant and of the offense, has been Government of the United States in the Philippine Islands and the
once in jeopardy and cannot for the same offense be again Government of the Philippine Islands, as defined and penalized in section 4
prosecuted in another court of the same sovereignty." of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission.
2. Grafton vs. U.S. a private in the United States Army in the Acts subject of the conviction:
Philippines was tried by a general court martial for homicide under (a) During the latter part of the year 1903 a junta was organized and a
the Articles of War. Having been acquitted in that court, he was conspiracy entered into by a number of Filipinos, resident in the city
prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for murder under of Hongkong, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of
the general laws of the Philippines. Invoking his previous acquittal in the United States in the Philippine Islands by force of arms and
the military court, he pleaded it in bar of proceedings against him in establishing in its stead a government to be known as the
the civil court, but the latter court overruled the plea and after trial Republica Universal Democratica Filipina;
found him guilty of homicide and sentenced him to prison. The (b) That one Prim Ruiz was recognized as the titular head of this
sentence was affirmed by this Supreme Court, but on appeal to the conspiracy and one Artemio Ricarte as chief of the military forces to
Supreme Court of the United States, the sentence was reversed and the organized in the Philippines in the furtherance of the plans of
defendant acquitted, that court holding that "defendant, having been the conspirators;
acquitted of the crime of homicide alleged to have been committed (c) That toward the end of December, 1903 the said Ricarte came to
by him by a court martial of competent jurisdiction proceeding under Manila from Hongkong in hidding on board the steamship
the authority of the United States, cannot be subsequently tried for Yuensang;
the same offense in a civil court exercising authority in the (d) That after his arrival in the Philippines he held a number of
Philippines." meetings in the city of Manila and the adjoining provinces whereat
was perfected the above-mentioned conspiracy hatched in
MISPRISION OF TREASON Hongkong;
(Art. 115, RPC) (e) That at these meetings new members were taken into the
conspiracy and plans made for the enlistment of an army of
CASE 4: US v. Francisco Bautista (Molina) revolution and the raising of money by national and private loans to
G.R. No. L-2189, November 3, 1906 carry on the campaign;
En Banc; Carson, J. (f) That to this end bonds were issued and commissions as officers in
the revolutionary army were granted to a number of conspirators,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
empowering the officers thus appointed to raise troops and take (o) That at a later conference he assured the said Muñoz that he had
command thereof; and things in readiness, meaning thereby that he had duly organized in
(g) That the conspirators did in fact take the field and offered armed accordance with the terms of his commission.
resistance to the constituted authorities in the Philippines, only
failing in their design of overthrowing the Government because of As to De Guzman’s participation:
their failure to combat successfully with the officers of the law who (p) That De Guzman accepted a number of bonds from one of the
were sent against them and of the failure of the people to rise en conspirators, such bonds having been prepared by the
masse in response to their propaganda. conspirators for the purpose of raising funds for carrying out the
plans of the conspiracy;
As to Bautista’s participation (q) That when he opened the bundle and discovered the nature of
(h) That the appellant Francisco Bautista, a resident of the city of the contents he destroyed them with fire, and that he never
Manila, was an intimate friend of the said Ricarte; had any dealings with the conspirators in relation to the
(i) That Ricarte wrote and notified Bautista of his coming to conspiracy or the object for which it was organized.
Manila and that, to aid him in his journey, Bautista forwarded
to him secretly 200 pesos; Issue: Are the appellants guilty of conspiracy to commit treason?
(j) That after the arrival of Ricarte, Bautista was present, taking
part in several of the above-mentioned meetings whereat the Ruling: Only PUZON and BAUTISTA are guilty of conspiracy to commit
plans of the conspirators were discussed and perfected, and treason. DE GUZMAN is acquitted.
(k) That at one of these meetings Bautista, in answer to a
question of Ricarte, assured him that the necessary As to the guilt of PUZON and BAUTISTA
preparations had been made and that he "held the people in It is contended that the acceptance or possession of an appointment as an
readiness." officer of the military forces of the conspiracy should not be considered as
evidence against him in the light of the decisions of this court in the cases of
As to Puzon’s participation the United States vs. Antonio de los Reyes 1 (2 Off. Gaz., 364), United
(l) That the appellant, Tomas Puzon, united with the conspirators States vs. Silverio Nuñez et al.2 (3 Off. Gaz., 408), the United States vs.
through the agency of one Jose R. Muñoz, who was proven to Eusebio de la Serna et al. 3 (3 Off. Gaz., 528), and United States vs.
have been a prime leader of the movement, in the intimate Bernardo Manalo et al. 4 (4 Off. Gaz., 570).
confidence of Ricarte, and by him authorized to distribute
bonds and nominate and appoint certain officials, including a But the case at bar is to be distinguished from these and like cases by the
brigadier-general of the signal corps of the proposed fact (1) that the record clearly disclose that the accused actually and
revolutionary forces; voluntarily accepted the appointment in question and in doing so
(m) That at the time when the conspiracy was being brought to a head assumed all the obligations implied by such acceptance, and (2) that
in the city of Manila, Puzon held several conferences with the said the charge in this case is that of conspiracy, and the fact that the
Muñoz whereat plans were made for the coming insurrection; accused accepted the appointment is taken into consideration merely
(n) That at one of these conferences Muñoz offered Puzon a as evidence of his criminal relations with the conspirators.
commission as brigadier-general of the signal corps and
undertook to do his part in organizing the troops; and
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) In the first of these cases — the United States vs. De los Reyes — (d) In the case of the United States vs. Bernardo Manalo et al. there
the accused was charged with treason, and the court found that was testimony that four appointments of officials in a revolutionary
the mere acceptance of a commission by the defendant, nothing army were found in a trunk in the house of one Valentin Colorado,
else being done either by himself or by his companions, was not an and the court in said case reaffirmed the doctrine that "the mere
"overt act" of treason within the meaning of the law, but the court possession of the documents of this kind is not sufficient to
further expressly held that —“That state of affairs disclosed body convict," and held, furthermore, that there was "evidence in the
of evidence, . . . the playing of the game of government like case that at the time these papers were received by the appellant,
children, the secretaries, colonels, and captains, the pictures Valentin Colorado, he went to one of the assistant councilmen of
of flags and seals and commission, all on proper, for the the barrio in which lived, a witness for the Government, showed him
purpose of duping and misleading the ignorant and the the envelope, and stated to him he had received these papers; that
visionary . . . should not be dignified by the name of treason.” he didn't know what they were and requested this councilman to
open them. The coucilman did not wish to do that but took the
(b) In the second case — the United States vs. Nuñez et al. -- wherein envelope and sent it to the councilman Jose Millora. We are
the accused were charged with brigandage, the court held that, satisfied that this envelope contained the appointments in question
aside from the possession of commissions in an insurgent band, and that the appellant did not act under the appointment but
there was no evidence to show that it they had committed the crime immediately reported the receipt of them to the authorities."
and, "moreover, that it appeared that they had never united with
any party of brigands and never had been in any way connected It is quite conceivable (a) that a group of conspirators might appoint a
with such parties unless the physical possession of these person in no wise connected with them to some high office in the conspiracy,
appointments proved such relation," and that it appeared that each in the hope that such person would afterwards accept the commission and
one of the defendants "were separately approached at different thus unite himself with them, (b) that such an appointment might be
times by armed men while working in the field and were virtually forwarded in the mail or otherwise, and thus come into the possession of the
compelled to accept the commissions." person thus nominated, and (c) that such appointment might be found in his
possession, and (d) notwithstanding all this, the person in whose
(c) In the case of the United States vs. de la Serna et al. it was possession the appointment was found might be entirely innocent of all
contended that de la Serna had confessed that "he was one of the intention to join the conspiracy, never having authorized the conspirators to
members of the pulajanes, with a commission as colonel," but the use his name in this manner nor to send such a commission to him.
court was of opinion that the evidence did not sustain a finding that
such confession had in fact been made, hence the doctrine laid Where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have existed as in this case,
down in that decision, "that the mere possession of such an and it is proven that the accused voluntarily accepted an appointment
appointment, when it is not shown that the possessor executed as an officer in that conspiracy, we think that this fact may properly be
some external act by the virtue of the same, does not constitute taken into consideration as evidence of his relations with the
sufficient proof of the guilt of the defendant," applies only the case conspirators.
of Enrique Camonas, against whom the only evidence of record
was "the fact that a so-called appointment of sergeant was found at Two-witness rule inapplicable
his house."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The crime of conspiring to commit treason is a separate and distinct offense Domingo Macaraeg, Carlos Caguioa, Domingo Caguioa, Antonio Romero,
from the crime of treason, and that this constitutional provision is not Fabian Rosario, Inocencio Torio, Nicolas Abalos, Roman Prado, Pedro
applicable in such cases. Miranda, Diego Casino, and Ricardo Fernandez as captains, Francisco
Fernandez, Eugenio Lomibao, and Ciriaco Verzosa as lieutenants, Domingo
DE GUZMAN is acquitted: Archangel as military governor of the pueblo of San Carlos and Celedonio
The evidence of record does not sustain the conviction of Aniceto de Ramos as military governor of the pueblo of Lingayen. Under this
Guzman. The finding of his guilt rest substantially upon his acceptance government the Province of Pangasinan was divided into six zones or
of a number of bonds from one of the conspirators, such bonds having military districts.cha
been prepared by the conspirators for the purpose of raising funds for
carrying out the plans of the conspiracy, but it does not affirmatively Issue: Whether or not appellants are guilty of the crime charged
appear (a) that he knew anything of the existence of the conspiracy or (b)
that, when he received the bonds wrapped in a bundle, he knew what the Ruling: Yes. The evidence clearly and indubitably shows the existence of
contents of the bundle was, nor (c) that ever, on any occasion, assumed any such society and the seditious character of its purposes. It shows that most
obligation with respect to these bonds. He, himself, states that when he of the defendants attended various meetings of said society, at which Pedro
opened the bundle and discovered the nature of the contents he Cabola made revolutionary and seditious speeches; and that many of the
destroyed them with fire, and that he never had any dealings with the defendants signed a document or documents seditious in character, their
conspirators in relation to the conspiracy or the object for which it was clearly indicated purpose being the destruction of the Government of the
organized. United States in the Philippine Islands. Many of the defendants were found
in possession of commission from Pedro Cabola appointing them officers in
CASE 5: US v. Cabola (Dalaguete) his military organization. Several of the defendants confessed their guilt to
GR No. L – 4663, October 9, 1909 the public officials and related facts connecting many of the other defendants
En banc with the society in question.
Facts: Appellants were charged with violation of section 4 of Act no. 292 of
the Philippine Commission, enacted for the purpose of punishing those who
should enter into a conspiracy to destroy the Government of the United QUALIFIED PIRACY
States in the Philippine Islands (Art. 123, RPC)
On or about the month of August, 1907, in the pueblo of Lingayen, in the CASE 6: PEOPLE vs. ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO
Province of Pangasinan, Pedro Cabola, in conjunction with other individuals, O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and JOHN
by means of the pacto de sangre, organized a Katipunan Society, which had DOES (Dimayuga)
for its object the destruction by force of the Government of the United States G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001
in the Philippine Islands and the establishment by said defendants of THIRD DIVISION; MELO, J.:
another government in the form of a military organization in which Pedro
Cabola should figure as supreme head, Urbano Ramos as a lieutenant- Doctrine: Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the
colonel, Claro Ramos and Rafael Apostol as comandantes, Pedro Ramos as provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 piracy under Article
secretary, Gregorio Ramos, Agustin Castro, Martin Soriano, Genaro Sison,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
122 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and piracy under Presidential with the stern warning not to report the incident to government authorities for
Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws. a period of two days or until April 12, 1991, otherwise they would be killed.
The members of the vessel were freed. They reported the incident to the
Facts: "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and authorities.
Transport Corporation, loaded with barrels of kerosene, gasoline and diesel
oil, amounting to P40,426,793,87, was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near The respondents were arrested, charged and convicted of qualified piracy.
Silonay Island. The court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of the
crime of piracy in Philippine Waters defined in Section 2(d) of Presidential
The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, was suddenly boarded, with the Decree No. 532 and the accused Cheong San Hiong, as accomplice, to said
use of an aluminum ladder, by seven fully armed pirates led by Emilio crime.
Changco, older brother of accused-appellant Cecilio Changco. The pirates,
including accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. were armed with Issue: Did the trial court err in finding that the prosecution was able to prove
M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns, and bolos. They detained the crew beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants committed the crime of
and took complete control of the vessel. Thereafter, accused-appellant Loyola qualified piracy?
ordered three crew members to paint over, using black paint, the name "M/T
Tabangao" on the front and rear portions of the vessel, as well as the PNOC Ruling: No. Emilio Changco, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante,
logo on the chimney of the vessel. The vessel was then painted with the name Jr. and others, were the ones assigned to attack and seize the "M/T
"Galilee," with registry at San Lorenzo, Honduras. The crew was forced to sail Tabangao" off Lubang, Mindoro, while accused-appellant Cecilio Changco
to Singapore, all the while sending misleading radio messages to PNOC that was to fetch the master and the members of the crew from the shoreline of
the ship was undergoing repairs. Calatagan, Batangas after the transfer, and bring them to Imus, Cavite, and
to provide the crew and the officers of the vessel with money for their fare and
On March 9, 1991, the ship arrived in the vicinity of Singapore and cruised food provisions on their way home. These acts had to be well-coordinated.
around the area presumably to await another vessel which, however, failed to
arrive. The pirates were thus forced to return to the Philippines on March 14, As for accused-appellant Hiong, he ratiocinates that he can no longer be
1991, arriving at Calatagan, Batangas on March 20, 1991 where it remained convicted of piracy in Philippine waters as defined and penalized in Sections
at sea. On March 28, 1991, the "M/T Tabangao" again sailed to and anchored 2[d] and 3[a], respectively of Presidential Decree No. 532 because Republic
about 10 to 18 nautical miles from Singapore's shoreline where another vessel Act No. 7659 (effective January 1, 1994), which amended Article 122 of the
called "Navi Pride" anchored beside it. Emilio Changco ordered the crew of Revised Penal Code, has impliedly superseded Presidential Decree No. 532.
"M/T Tabangao" to transfer the vessel's cargo to the hold of "Navi Pride". He reasons out that Presidential Decree No. 532 has been rendered
Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong supervised the crew of "Navi Pride" in "superfluous or duplicitous" because both Article 122 of the Revised Penal
receiving the cargo. The transfer, after an interruption, with both vessels Code, as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 532 punish piracy committed
leaving the area, was completed on March 30, 1991. in Philippine waters. He maintains that in order to reconcile the two laws, the
word "any person" mentioned in Section 1 [d] of Presidential Decree No. 532
On March 30, 1991, "M/T Tabangao" returned to the same area and must be omitted such that Presidential Decree No. 532 shall only apply to
completed the transfer of cargo to "Navi Pride." On April 8, 1991, "M/T offenders who are members of the complement or to passengers of the
Tabangao" arrived at Calatagan, Batangas, but the vessel remained at sea. vessel, whereas Republic Act No. 7659 shall apply to offenders who are
On April 10, 1991, the members of the crew were released in three batches
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
neither members of the complement or passengers of the vessel, hence,
excluding him from the coverage of the law. CASE 7: PEOPLE vs. LOL-LO and SARAW (Dionisio)
PEOPLE VS. LOL-LO and SARAW
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922
piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its
Doctrine: Piracy is a crime against humankind; pirates are hostes humanis
complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act
generis. Thus, the crime can be prosecuted here even if the crime was
No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include committed outside the Philippine territory.
offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On the other hand, under
Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on Facts: Two boats left Matuta for Peta (Dutch territories). One boat contained
piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the a Dutch citizen while the other contained eleven men, women, and children
complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, a (all Dutch citizens). While in between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the
member of the complement or not, any person is covered by the law. Dutch East Indies, the boats were surrounded by six vintas manned by 24
armed moros. The moros initially asked for food but once on board the boat,
the moros attacked the men and violated the women. All the passengers with
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on the exception of two women were asked to remain in the boat and holes were
piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between made in it.
the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to
construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the Lol-lo and Saraw (two of the Moro men involved) later returned home to Tawi-
coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as well Tawi, Sulu where they were arrested and charged of piracy. A demurer was
as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed in filed based on the fact that the court do not have jurisdiction which was
overruled by the trial court
one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among
the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all Issues:
countries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and (1) WON THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE
piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate (2) WON THE LAWS ON PIRACY FROM SPANISH LAW ARE STILL
laws. APPLICABLE
Ruling:
As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the person of accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside (1) YES. The Court has jurisdiction.
Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and
seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its
Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful
cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal
later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, hostility. Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime not
transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under accused-appellant against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the
Hiong's direct supervision. Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or into
the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has
no territorial limits. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the
waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed
jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, "for those limits, though neutral to
part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Philippine war, are not neutral to crimes."
waters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) YES. The Spanish law on piracy still applies. The transfer of Philippine Doctrine: Curtailment of the victims liberty need not involve any physical
territory from Spain to the United States has the effect of abrogating the restraint upon the victims person. If the acts and actuations of the accused
political law of the former sovereignty. The municipal law in so far as it is can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter,
consistent with the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or the
to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and
characteristics and institutions of the government, remains in force. As a
corollary to the main rules, laws subsisting at the time of transfer, designed to movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is,
secure good order and peace in the community, which are strictly of a for all intents and purposes, detained against his will.
municipal character, continue until by direct action of the new government they
are altered or repealed. Facts: DENR-Tacloban City sent a team to the island of Daram, Western
Samar to conduct intelligence gathering and forest protection operations in
Hence, the articles of the Spanish Penal Code dealing with piracy are still line with the governments campaign against illegal logging. The team was
applicable to the case at bar. composed of Forester II Moises dela Cruz, Scaler Wenifredo Maniscan,
Forest Ranger Renato Militante, and Tree Marker Crisanto Pelias, with Elpidio
The crime committed by accused falls under the first paragraph of article 153 E. Simon, Chief of the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Section, as
of the Penal Code in relation to article 154. There are present at least two of team leader. The team was escorted by SPO3 Andres B. Cinco, Jr. and SPO1
the circumstances named in the last cited article as authorizing either cadena Rufo Capoquian.
perpetua or death. The crime of piracy was accompanied by (1) an offense
against chastity and (2) the abandonment of persons without apparent means
of saving themselves. En route to Brgy. Manungca, Sta. Rita, Samar, the team spotted two more
boats being constructed in the vicinity of Brgy. Lucob-Lucob, Daram, Samar,
In this connection, the trial court, found the presence of one aggravating prompting them to stop and investigate. Thus, Maniscan and Militante
circumstance of nocturnity, and compensating the same by the one mitigating disembarked from the DENRs service pump boat and proceeded to the site
circumstance of lack of instruction. At least three aggravating circumstances, of the boat construction. There, they met Mayor Astorga. After conversing with
that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately the mayor, Militante returned to their boat for the purpose of fetching Simon,
augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission, that at the request of Mayor Astorga.
advantage was taken of superior strength, and that means were employed
which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act, must also be taken into
When Simon, accompanied by dela Cruz, SPO3 Cinco, and SPO1
consideration in fixing the penalty. Considering, therefore, the number and
importance of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances here present, Capoquian, approached Mayor Astorga to try and explain the purpose of their
which cannot be offset by the sole mitigating circumstance of lack of mission, Simon was suddenly slapped hard twice on the shoulder by Mayor
instruction, and the horrible nature of the crime committed, the court is duty Astorga, Mayor Astorga then ordered someone to fetch reinforcements, and
bound to impose capital punishment. forty-five (45) minutes later, a banca arrived bearing ten (10) men, some of
them dressed in fatigue uniforms, armed with M-16 and M14 rifles, and they
ARBITRARY DETENTION promptly surrounded the team, guns pointed at the team members. Simon
(Art. 124, RPC) then took out his handheld radio, saying that he was going to contact DENR
in Catbalogan to inform them of the teams whereabouts. Suddenly, Mayor
CASE 8: BENITO ASTORGA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Astorga forcibly grabbed Simons radio. Simon then asked Mayor Astorga to
G.R. No. 154130. October 1, 2003 allow the team to go home, at which Mayor Astorga retorted that they would
First Division; Ynares-Santiago, J. not be allowed to go home and that they would instead be brought to Daram.
The team was brought to a house where they were told that they would be
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
erved dinner. The team had dinner with Mayor Astorga and several others at In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their
a long table, and the meal lasted between 7:00-8:00 p.m. After dinner, pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by petitioner to
Militante, Maniscan and SPO1 Capoquian were allowed to go down from the go home.This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and arrival of almost
house, but not to leave the barangay. On the other hand, SPO3 Cinco and the a dozen reinforcements, all armed with military-issue rifles, who proceeded to
rest just sat in the house until 2:00 a.m. when the team was finally allowed to encircle the team, weapons pointed at the complainants and the witnesses.
leave.
Complainants filed a criminal complaint for arbitrary detention against Mayor Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquians statement
Astorga and his men. that it was not safe to refuse Mayor Astorgas orders. It was not just the
presence of the armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had on
Issue: Whether or not the trial court grievously erred in finding the accused the actions of the team which proves that fear was indeed instilled in the minds
guilty of Arbitrary Detention notwithstanding the Affidavit of Desistance of the team members, to the extent that they felt compelled to stay in Brgy.
executed by the five (5) complaining witnesses Lucob-Lucob. The intent to prevent the departure of the complainants and
witnesses against their will is thus clear.
Ruling: Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or employee
who, without legal grounds, detains a person. The elements of the crime are: Regarding the Joint Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. complainants, suffice it to say that the principles governing the use of such
2. That he detains a person. instruments in the adjudication of other crimes can be applied here. Thus, in
3. That the detention is without legal grounds. People v. Ballabare, it was held that an affidavit of desistance is merely an
additional ground to buttress the defenses of the accused, not the sole
In this case, petitioner, at the time he committed the acts assailed herein, was consideration that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances
then Mayor of Daram, Samar is not disputed. Hence, the first element of which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create doubts as to the
Arbitrary Detention, that the offender is a public officer or employee, is truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted by the
undeniably present. Also, the records are bereft of any allegation on the part judge. Here, there are no such circumstances.
of petitioner that his acts were spurred by some legal purpose. On the
contrary, he admitted that his acts were motivated by his instinct for self- CASE 9: ROBINHOOD PADILLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Gasapo)
preservation and the feeling that he was being singled out. The detention was G.R. No. 121917. March 12, 1997
thus without legal grounds, thereby satisfying the third element enumerated Third Division; Francisco, J.
above. What remains is the determination of whether or not the team was
actually detained. Doctrine:
Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances:
The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
curtailment of the victims liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
the victims person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the extent that knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in accordance it.
with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents and purposes, (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
detained against his will. penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being Manarang and Cruz went out to investigate and immediately saw the vehicle
transferred from one confinement to another. occupying the edge or shoulder of the highway giving it a slight tilt to its side.
Manarang, being a member of both the Spectrum, a civic group and the
The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and seizure
Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council, decided to report the incident to the
of property is valid, are as follows:
Philippine National Police of Angeles City. He took out his radio and called the
1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Viper, the radio controller of the Philippine National Police of Angeles City. By
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing the time Manarang completed the call, the vehicle had started to leave the
jurisprudence, place of the accident taking the general direction to the north.
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are: Manarang went to the location of the accident and found out that the vehicle
had hit somebody.
(a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official He asked Cruz to look after the victim while he went back to the restaurant,
duties; rode on his motorcycle and chased the vehicle. During the chase he was able
(b). the evidence as inadvertently discovered by the police who had to make out the plate number of the vehicle as PMA 777. He called the Viper
the right to be where they are; through the radio once again reporting that a vehicle heading north with plate
(c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and number PMA 777 was involved in a hit and run accident. The Viper, in the
(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further person of SPO2 Ruby Buan, upon receipt of the second radio call flashed the
search. message to all units of PNP Angeles City with the order to apprehend the
vehicle. One of the units of the PNP Angeles City reached by the alarm was
its Patrol Division at Jake Gonzales Street near the Traffic Division. SPO2
Facts: Juan C. Borja III and SPO2 Emerlito Miranda immediately boarded a mobile
Charge: Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions patrol vehicle (Mobile No. 3) and positioned themselves near the south
RTC: Convicted as charged approach of Abacan bridge since it was the only passable way going to the
CA: Sustained the RTC north. It took them about ten (10) seconds to cover the distance between their
office and the Abacan bridge.
In the evening of October 26, 1992, Enrique Manarang and his compadre
Danny Perez were inside the Manukan sa Highway Restaurant in Sto. Kristo, Another PNP mobile patrol vehicle that responded to the flash message from
Angeles City where they took shelter from the heavy downpour that had SPO2 Buan was Mobile No. 7 of the Pulongmaragal Detachment which was
interrupted their ride on motorcycles along McArthur Highway. While inside then conducting patrol along Don Juico Avenue. On board were SPO Ruben
the restaurant, Manarang noticed a vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero, running fast Mercado and SPO3 Tan and SPO2 Odejar. SPO Ruben Mercado immediately
down the highway prompting him to remark that the vehicle might get into an told SPO3 Tan to proceed to the MacArthur Highway to intercept the vehicle
accident considering the inclement weather. True enough, immediately after with plate number PMA 777.
the vehicle had passed the restaurant, Manarang and Perez heard a
In the meantime, Manarang continued to chase the vehicle which figured in
screeching sound produced by the sudden and hard braking of a vehicle
the hit and run incident, even passing through a flooded portion of the
running very fast followed by a sickening sound of the vehicle hitting
MacArthur Highway two (2) feet deep in front of the Iglesia ni Kristo church
something.
but he could not catch up with the same vehicle. When he saw that the car he
was chasing went towards Magalang, he proceeded to Abacan bridge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
because he knew Pulongmaragal was not passable. When he reached the appellant that he was being arrested for the hit and run incident. He pointed
Abacan bridge, he found Mobile No. 3 and SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda out to appellant the fact that the plate number of his vehicle was dangling
watching all vehicles coming their way. He approached them and informed and the railing and the hood were dented. Appellant, however, arrogantly
them that there was a hit and run incident.Upon learning that the two police denied his misdeed and, instead, played with the crowd by holding their
officers already knew about the incident, Manarang went back to where he hands with one hand and pointing to SPO3 Borja with his right hand saying
came from. When Manarang was in front of Tina's Restaurant, he saw the 'iyan, kinuha ang baril. Because appellant's jacket was short, his gesture
vehicle that had figured in the hit and run incident emerging from the corner exposed a long magazine of an armalite rifle tucked in appellant's back right
adjoining Tina's Restaurant. He saw that the license plate hanging in front of pocket . SPO Mercado saw this and so when appellant turned around as he
the vehicle bore the identifying number PMA 777 and he followed it towards was talking and proceeding to his vehicle, Mercado confiscated the
the Abacan bridge. magazine from appellant. Suspecting that appellant could also be carrying a
rifle inside the vehicle since he had a magazine, SPO2 Mercado prevented
Soon the vehicle was within sight of SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda of
appellant from going back to his vehicle by opening himself the door of
Mobile No. 3. When the vehicle was about twelve (12) meters away from
appellant's vehicle. He saw a baby armalite rifle lying horizontally at the front
their position, the two police officers boarded their Mobile car, switched on
by the driver's seat. It had a long magazine filled with live bullets in a semi-
the engine, operated the siren and strobe light and drove out to intercept the
automatic mode. He asked appellant for the papers covering the rifle and
vehicle. They cut into the path of the vehicle forcing it to stop.
appellant answered angrily that they were at his home. SPO Mercado
SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda alighted from Mobile No. 3. SPO2 Miranda modified the arrest of appellant by including as its ground illegal possession
went to the vehicle with plate number PMA 777 and instructed its driver to of firearms. SPO Mercado then read to appellant his constitutional rights.
alight. The driver rolled down the window and put his head out while raising
The police officers brought appellant to the Traffic Division at Jake Gonzales
both his hands. They recognized the driver as Robin C. Padilla. There was
Boulevard where appellant voluntarily surrendered a third firearm, a pietro
no one else with him inside the vehicle. At that moment, Borja noticed that
berreta pistol with a single round in its chamber and a magazine loaded with
Manarang arrived and stopped his motorcycle behind the vehicle of
seven (7) other live bullets. Appellant also voluntarily surrendered a black bag
appellant. SPO2 Miranda told appellant to alight to which appellant complied.
containing two additional long magazines and one short magazine. After
Appellant was wearing a short leather jacket such that when he alighted with
appellant had been interrogated by the Chief of the Traffic Division, he was
both his hands raised, a gun (Exhibit 'C') tucked on the left side of his waist
transferred to the Police Investigation Division at Sto. Rosario Street beside
was revealed, its butt protruding. SPO2 Borja made the move to confiscate
the City Hall Building where he and the firearms and ammunitions were turned
the gun but appellant held the former's hand alleging that the gun was
over to SPO2 Rene Jesus Gregorio. During the investigation, appellant
covered by legal papers. SPO2 Borja, however, insisted that if the gun really
admitted possession of the firearms stating that he used them for shooting.
was covered by legal papers, it would have to be shown in the office. After
He was not able to produce any permit to carry or memorandum receipt to
disarming appellant, SPO2 Borja told him about the hit and run incident which
cover the three firearms.
was angrily denied by appellant. By that time, a crowd had formed at the
place. SPO2 Borja checked the cylinder of the gun and find six (6) live bullets Among the Petitioner's defenses is: (1) that his arrest was illegal and
inside. consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are
inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.
While SPO2 Borja and appellant were arguing, Mobile No. 7 with SPO Ruben
Mercado, SPO3 Tan and SPO2 Odejar on board arrived. As the most senior
police officer in the group, SPO Mercado took over the matter and informed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue: Was the arrest of the accused illegal, and consequently, the firearms the police and thereafter gave chase to the erring Pajero vehicle using his
and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver. After having sent a radio report to
under the exclusionary rule? the PNP for assistance, Manarang proceeded to the Abacan bridge where he
found responding policemen SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda already
Ruling: No. THE ARREST WAS LEGAL. The firearms and ammunitions positioned near the bridge who effected the actual arrest of petitioner.
taken in the course of the queationed arrest are admissible in evidence.
There is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner, but Petitioner would nonetheless insist on the illegality of his arrest by arguing that
that per se did not make his apprehension at the Abacan bridge illegal. the policemen who actually arrested him were not at the scene of the hit and
run. The Court begs to disagree. That Manarang decided to seek the aid
Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances:
of the policemen (who admittedly were nowhere in the vicinity of the hit
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a and run) in effecting petitioner's arrest, did not in any way affect the
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: propriety of the apprehension. It was in fact the most prudent action
Manarang could have taken rather than collaring petitioner by himself,
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has inasmuch as policemen are unquestionably better trained and well-
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to equipped in effecting an arrest of a suspect (like herein petitioner) who,
commit an offense; in all probability, could have put up a degree of resistance which an
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and untrained civilian may not be able to contain without endangering his
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the own life. Moreover, it is a reality that curbing lawlessness gains more
person to be arrested has committed it. success when law enforcers function in collaboration with private
citizens. It is precisely through this cooperation, that the offense herein
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has involved fortunately did not become an additional entry to the long list
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is of unreported and unsolved crimes.
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred It is appropriate to state at this juncture that a suspect, like petitioner
from one confinement to another. herein, cannot defeat the arrest which has been set in motion in a public place
for want of a warrant as the police was confronted by an urgent need to render
Paragraph (a) requires that the person be arrested (i) after he has aid or take action. The exigent circumstances of - hot pursuit, a fleeing
committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to suspect, a moving vehicle, the public place and the raining nighttime - all
commit an offense, (ii) in the presence of the arresting officer or private created a situation in which speed is essential and delay improvident. The
person. Both elements concurred here, as it has been established that Court acknowledges police authority to make the forcible stop since they had
petitioner's vehicle figured in a hit and run - an offense committed in the more than mere "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that the occupant of
"presence" of Manarang, a private person, who then sought to arrest the vehicle has been engaged in criminal activity. Moreover, when caught in
petitioner. It must be stressed at this point that "presence" does not only flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm (Smith & Wesson)
require that the arresting person sees the offense, but also when he and ammunition (M-16 magazine), petitioner's warrantless arrest was proper
"hears the disturbance created thereby AND proceeds at once to the as he was again actually committing another offense (illegal possession of
scene." As testified to by Manarang, he heard the screeching of tires followed firearm and ammunitions) and this time in the presence of a peace officer.
by a thud, saw the sideswiped victim (balut vendor), reported the incident to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, the policemen's warrantless arrest of petitioner could likewise (c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
be justified under paragraph (b) as he had in fact just committed an
(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
offense. There was no supervening event or a considerable lapse of time
search.
between the hit and run and the actual apprehension. Moreover, after
having stationed themselves at the Abacan bridge in response to 3. search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the
Manarang's report, the policemen saw for themselves the fast vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially
approaching Pajero of petitioner, its dangling plate number (PMA 777 as when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
reported by Manarang), and the dented hood and railings thereof. These suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a
formed part of the arresting police officer's personal knowledge of the criminal activity.
facts indicating that petitioner's Pajero was indeed the vehicle involved
in the hit and run incident. Verily then, the arresting police officers acted 4. consented warrantless search, and
upon verified personal knowledge and not on unreliable hearsay 5. customs search.
information In conformity with respondent court's observation, it indeed appears that the
Furthermore, in accordance with settled jurisprudence, any authorities stumbled upon petitioner's firearms and ammunitions without even
objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before undertaking any active search which, as it is commonly understood, is a prying
the accused enters his plea. Petitioner's belated challenge thereto aside into hidden places for that which is concealed. The seizure of the Smith &
from his failure to quash the information, his participation in the trial and Wesson revolver and an M-16 rifle magazine was justified for they came
by presenting his evidence, placed him in estoppel to assail the legality within "plain view" of the policemen who inadvertently discovered the
of his arrest. Likewise, by applying for bail, petitioner patently waived revolver and magazine tucked in petitioner's waist and back pocket
such irregularities and defects. respectively, when he raised his hands after alighting from his Pajero.
The same justification applies to the confiscation of the M-16 armalite
THE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITIONS SEIZED FROM THE rifle which was immediately apparent to the policemen as they took a
PETITIONER ARE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE casual glance at the Pajero and saw said rifle lying horizontally near the
driver's seat. Thus it has been held that:
The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and
seizure of property is valid, are as follows: "(W)hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a
criminal offense, the . . . police officers should happen to discover
1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under
a criminal offense being committed by any person, they are not
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing
precluded from performing their duties as police officers for the
jurisprudence,
apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the corpus
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are: delicti."
(a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in "Objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant."
duties;
With respect to the Berreta pistol and a black bag containing assorted
(b). the evidence as inadvertently discovered by the police who had magazines, petitioner voluntarily surrendered them to the police. This
the right to be where they are; latter gesture of petitioner indicated a waiver of his right against the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alleged search and seizure, and that his failure to quash the information 2nd Division
estopped him from assailing any purported defect.
Doctrine: Based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election day or a
Even assuming that the firearms and ammunitions were products
special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the period
of an active search done by the authorities on the person and vehicle of
prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in cases of
petitioner, their seizure without a search warrant nonetheless can still
warrantless arrests, it being a no-office day.
be justified under a search incidental to a lawful arrest (first instance).
Once the lawful arrest was effected, the police may undertake a protective Facts: Petitioners, thru a special civil action for certiorari, contend precisely
search of the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle which are that the public respondents herein officers of the Office of the Ombudsman
within petitioner's grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense. gravely abused their discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of
This satisfied the two-tiered test of an incidental search: (i) the item to be Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (Delay in the delivery of detained
searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate persons) against private respondents herein, members of the Philippine
control and (ii) the search was contemporaneous with the arrest. The National Police stationed at the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur.
products of that search are admissible evidence not excluded by the
exclusionary rule. Another justification is a search of a moving vehicle On or about 8:30 in the evening of 13 May 2001 (a Sunday and the day
(third instance). In connection therewith, a warrantless search is before the 14 May 2001 Elections), RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA
constitutionally permissible when, as in this case, the officers were arrested without a warrant by respondents police officers for alleged
conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
before the search, that either the motorist is a law-offender (like herein
petitioner with respect to the hit and run) or the contents or cargo of the Soria was arrested for alleged illegal possession of .38 cal. revolver (a crime
vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the which carries with it the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period)
proceeds of some criminal offense. and for violation of Article 261 par. (f) of the Omnibus Election Code. Bista
was arrested for alleged illegal possession of sub-machine pistol UZI, cal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals
9mm and a .22 cal. revolver with ammunition.
sustaining petitioner's conviction by the lower court of the crime of simple
illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions is AFFIRMED [EXCEPT that
They were detained at the Santa, Ilocos Sur, Police Station. It was at the Santa
petitioner's indeterminate penalty is MODIFIED to ten (10) years and one (1)
Police Station that petitioner Bista was identified by one of the police officers
day, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day,
to have a standing warrant of arrest for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6
as maximum].
issued by the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur.
The next day, at about 4:30 p.m. of 14 May 2001 (Monday and election day),
petitioners were brought to the residence of Provincial Prosecutor Jessica
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE
Viloria in San Juan, Ilocos Sur, before whom a Joint-Affidavit against them
PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
was subscribed and sworn to by the arresting officers. From there, the
(Art. 125, RPC)
arresting officers brought the petitioners to the Provincial Prosecutors Office
in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, and there at about 6:00 p.m. the Joint-Affidavit was filed
CASE 10: SORIA v. DESIERTO (GATDULA)
and docketed;
G.R. Nos. 153524-25. January 31, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later that evening, Soria was released upon the order of Prosecutor Viloria correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes
to undergo the requisite preliminary investigation, while petitioner Bista was or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
brought back and continued to be detained at the Santa Police Station. From
Soria was arrested without warrant are punishable by correctional penalties
the time of petitioner Sorias detention up to the time of his release, twenty-
or their equivalent, thus, criminal complaints or information should be filed with
two (22) hours had already elapsed;
the proper judicial authorities within 18 hours of his arrest. The alleged crimes
for which petitioner Bista was arrested are punishable by afflictive or capital
On 15 May 2001, Bista was brought before the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
penalties, or their equivalent, thus, he could only be detained for 36 hours
where the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 6 was pending. Bista
without criminal complaints or information having been filed with the proper
posted bail and an Order of Temporary Release was issued thereafter;
judicial authorities.
At this point in time, no order of release was issued in connection with The sole bone of contention revolves around the proper application of the 12-
petitioner Bistas arrest for alleged illegal possession of firearms. At 4:30 in 18-36 periods. With respect specifically to the detention of petitioner Soria
the afternoon of the same day, an information for Illegal Possession of which lasted for 22 hours, it is alleged that public respondents gravely erred
Firearms and Ammunition was filed against petitioner Bista. At 5:00pm, in construing Article 125 as excluding Sundays, holidays and election days in
informations for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition and violation the computation of the periods prescribed within which public officers should
of Article 261 par. (f) of the Omnibus Election Code were filed in the Regional deliver arrested persons to the proper judicial authorities as the law never
Trial Court at Narvacan, Ilocos Sur; makes such exception. Public respondents, on the other hand, relied on the
On 08 June 2001, petitioner Bista was released upon filing of bail bonds. He cases of Medina v. Orozco, Jr., and Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila and on
was detained for 26 days. commentaries of jurists to bolster their position that Sundays, holidays and
election days are excluded in the computation of the periods provided in
Petitioners filed with the Ombudsman for Military Affairs a complaint-affidavit Article 125, hence, the arresting officers delivered petitioners well within the
for violation of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code against herein private allowable time.
respondents.
No grave abuse of discretion, as defined, can be attributed to herein public
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit; and also respondents. Their disposition of petitioners complaint for violation of Article
dismissed their Motion for Reconsideration. 125 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be said to have been conjured out of
thin air as it was properly backed up by law and jurisprudence. Public
Issue: W/N the arresting officers were guilty of violating Art. 125 of the RPC. respondents ratiocinated thus:
As aptly pointed out by the respondents insofar as the complaint of Rodolfo

Ruling: NO. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code states: Delay in the Soria is concerned, based on applicable laws and jurisprudence, an election
delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties day or a special holiday, should not be included in the computation of the
provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer period prescribed by law for the filing of complaint/information in courts in
or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail cases of warrantless arrests, it being a no-office day. In the instant case, while
to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: it appears that the complaints against Soria for Illegal Possession of Firearm
twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their and Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 3328 were filed with the Regional
equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, only on May 15,
200[1] at 4:30 p.m., he had already been released the day before or on May
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14, 2001 at about 6:30 p.m. by the respondents, as directed by Prosecutor CASE 11: AGBAY v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (Gelomina)
Viloria. Hence, there could be no arbitrary detention or violation of Article 125 G.R. No. 134503. July 2, 1999
of the Revised Penal Code to speak of. Third division; Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
In the same vein, the complaint of Edimar Bista against the respondents for Doctrine: MTC, in the exercise of its power to conduct preliminary
Violation of Article 125, will not prosper because the running of the thirty-six investigations, is a proper judicial authority as contemplated by Art. 125
(36)-hour period prescribed by law for the filing of the complaint against him
from the time of his arrest was tolled by one day (election day). Moreover, he Facts: On September 7, 1997, petitioner, together with a certain Sherwin
has a standing warrant of arrest for Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 and it was only on Jugalbot, was arrested and detained at the Liloan Police Station, Metro Cebu
May 15, 2001, at about 2:00 p.m. that he was able to post bail and secure an for an alleged violation of R.A. 7610, the Special Protection of Children
Order of Release. Obviously, however, he could only be released if he has no Against Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The following day,
other pending criminal case requiring his continuous detention. or on September 8, 1997, a Complaint for violation of R.A. 7610 was filed
against petitioner and Jugalbot before the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court
The criminal Informations against Bista for Violations of Article 125, RPC and of Liloan, Metro Cebu by one Joan Gicaraya for and in behalf of her daughter
COMELEC Resolution No. 3328 were filed with the Regional Trial Court and Gayle. The complaint substantially provides that “…while accused JASPER
Municipal Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, on May 15, 2001 but he was AGBAY manipulating to finger the vagina of GAYLE FATIMA AMIGABLE
released from detention only on June 8, 2001, on orders of the RTC and MTC GICAYARA, his companion block the sight of the Private Complainant, Mrs.
of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. JOAN A. GICAYARA, while on board a tricycle going their destinations. Upon
initial investigation of the Bgy, Captain of Bgy. Catarman, accused SHERWIN
The complaints against him was seasonably filed in the court of justice within JUGALBOT was released and accused JASPER AGBAY is presently detain
the thirty-six (36)-hour period prescribed by law as discussed above. The duty Liloan Police Station Jail.”
of the detaining officers is deemed complied with upon the filing of the
complaints. Further action, like issuance of a Release Order, then rests upon On September 10, 1997, counsel for petitioner wrote the Chief of Police of
the judicial authority. Liloan demanding the immediate release of petitioner considering that the
latter had failed to deliver the detained Jasper Agbay to the proper judicial
Note: Just in case i-tanong ni JT ung definition ng Grave Abuse of Discretion authority within thirty-six (36) hours from September 7, 1997. Private
sa case respondents did not act on this letter and continued to detain petitioner.
Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of

On September 12, 1997, the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan, Metro
judgment on the part of the public officer concerned which is equivalent to an
Cebu issued an order, denominated as Detention During the Pendency of
excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and
the Case, committing petitioner to the jail warden of Cebu City. Five (5) days
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to
later, or on September 17, 1997, petitioner was ordered released by the said
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where
court after he had posted bond.
the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
passion or hostility.
On September 26, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for delay in the delivery
of detained persons against herein private respondents SPO4 Nemesio
Natividad, Jr., SPO2 Eleazar M. Salomon and other unidentified police officers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stationed at the Liloan Police Substation, before the Office of the Deputy but as a fiscal. In support, petitioner cites the cases of Sangguniang Bayan ng
Ombudsman for the Visayas. Batac, Ilocos Norte vs. Albano, 260 SCRA 561, and Castillo vs. Villaluz, 171
SCRA 39, where it was held that when a preliminary investigation is conducted
Regarding the complaint for violation of R.A. 7610, it is alleged by petitioner by a judge, he performs a non-judicial function as an exception to his usual
that on November 10, 1997, the 7th MCTC of Liloan, Metro Cebu issued a duties. Thus, petitioner opines, the ruling in Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila,
resolution containing the following dispositive portion: 80 Phil. 862, that the city fiscal is not the proper judicial authority referred to
in Art. 125 is applicable.
WHEREFORE, finding probable cause for the crime in
Violation of Republic Act 7610, it is hereby recommended As such, upon the lapse of the thirty-six hours given to the arresting officers
that an INFORMATION be filed against the two aforenamed to effect his delivery to the proper Regional Trial Court, private respondents
accused. were already guilty of violating Art. 125. Thus, petitioner argues, when the
Judge-Designate of the 7th MCTC issued a Commitment Order on September
Forward the record of this case to the Provincial Fiscals Office for appropriate 12, 1997, he was acting contrary to law since by then there was no basis for
action. the continued detention of petitioner.
By virtue of Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1995, dated 10 October DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, SOLICITOR GENERAL
1995 of the Office of the Ombudsman, the case for delay in delivery filed by In addressing the issue, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
petitioner against herein private respondents before the Deputy Ombudsman in its 13 April 1998 Order, stated that the duty of filing the corresponding
for the Visayas was transferred to the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military for complaint in court was fulfilled by respondent when the formal complaint was
its proper disposition. Thus, it was this office which acted on the complaint, filed on September 8, 1997 with the 7th MCTC of Liloan-Compostela, barely
now denominated as OMB-VIS-CRIM-97-0786, and which issued the 20 hours after the arrest of herein complainant of September 7, 1997. The
questioned Resolution dated January 19, 1998 recommending its dismissal Solicitor General, for his part, argues that while a municipal court judge may
against herein private respondents. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of conduct preliminary investigations as an exception to his normal judicial
this Resolution but this motion was denied in an Order dated April 13, 1998. duties, he still retains the authority to issue an order of release or commitment.
As such, upon the filing of the complaint with the MCTC, there was already
Recap: In the case at bar, petitioner was arrested and detained at the Liloan compliance with the very purpose and intent of Art. 125.
Police Station on 7 September 1997 for an alleged violation of R.A. 7610,
specifically section 5(b) thereof. This crime carries a penalty of reclusion Issue: Did the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court constitute
temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, an afflictive penalty. delivery to a proper judicial authority as contemplated by Art. 125 of the
Under these circumstances, a criminal complaint or information should be filed Revised Penal Code?
with the proper judicial authorities within thirty six (36) hours of his arrest.
Ruling: YES. The words judicial authority as contemplated by Art. 125 mean
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to
The act of private complainant in filing the complaint before the MCTC was for order the temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having
purposes of preliminary investigation as the MCTC has no jurisdiction to try committed a public offense, that is, the Supreme Court and other such inferior
the offense. Petitioner argues that when a municipal trial court judge, as in the courts as may be established by law.
instant case, conducts a preliminary investigation, he is not acting as a judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners reliance on the cited cases is misplaced. The cited cases of In the same manner, petitioners argument that the controversial orders issued
Sangguniang Bayan and Castillo dealt with the issue of whether or not the by the MCTC are contrary to law does not give rise to criminal liability on the
findings of the Municipal Court Judge in a preliminary investigation are subject part of the respondents. Respondent police officers may have rendered
to review by provincial and city fiscals. There was no pronouncement in these themselves open to sanctions if they had released petitioners without the
cases as to whether or not a municipal trial court, in the exercise of its power order of the court, knowing fully well that a complaint was already filed with it.
to conduct preliminary investigations, is a proper judicial authority as
contemplated by Art. 125. WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the
assailed January 19, 1998 Resolution and the April 13, 1998 Order of the
Neither can petitioner rely on the doctrine enunciated in Sayo vs. Chief of Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, the Court resolves to
Police, supra, since the facts of this case are different. In Sayo, the complaint DISMISS the petition. No pronouncement as to costs.
was filed with the city fiscal of Manila who could not issue an order of release
or commitment while in the instant case, the complaint was filed with a judge
who had the power to issue such an order. Furthermore, in the Resolution VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the Sayo case, this Court even (Arts. 128-130, RPC)
made a pronouncement that the delivery of a detained person is a legal one
and consists in making a charge or filing a complaint against the prisoner with CASE 12: MONCADO v. PEOPLE (Gementiza)
the proper justice of the peace or judge of Court of First Instance in provinces, No. L-824 January 14, 1948
and in filing by the city fiscal of an information with the corresponding city Pablo, J.
courts after an investigation if the evidence against said person warrants.
Doctrine: Article 128 Violation of Domicile and Article 130 Searching
The power to order the release or confinement of an accused is determinative domicile without witnesses
of the issue. In contrast with a city fiscal, it is undisputed that a municipal court
judge, even in the performance of his function to conduct preliminary Facts: Hilario Camino Moncado was charged for the crime of treason on
investigations, retains the power to issue an order of release or commitment. February 28, 1946. Almost a year before, on April 4,1945 at about 6 pm
Furthermore, upon the filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, petitioner was arrested by members of the Counter Intelligence Corps of the
the intent behind Art. 125 is satisfied considering that by such act, the detained United States Army at his residence at 199-A San Rafael St., Manila without
person is informed of the crime imputed against him and, upon his application any warrant of arrest and taken to Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa where he was
with the court, he may be released on bail. Petitioner himself acknowledged detained.
this power of the MCTC to order his release when he applied for and was
granted his release upon posting bail. Thus, the very purpose underlying Seven days thereafter, his wife who by then is residing in their new residence
Article 125 has been duly served with the filing of the complaint with the at 3 Rosario Drive, Quezon City was approached by several CIC officers
MCTC. We agree with the position of the Ombudsman that such filing of the headed by Lt. Olves and ordered her to accompany them to their former
complaint with the MCTC interrupted the period prescribed in said Article. residence at San Rafael to witness the taking of documents and things
belonging to her husband. Upon hearing that the officers had no search
Finally, we note that it was the mother of private complainant who filed the warrant for the purpose, she refused to go with them but after the officers told
complaint against petitioner with the 7th MCTC of Liloan, Metro Cebu. If there her that with or without her presence they would search the house at San
was any error in this procedure, private respondents should not be held liable. Rafael, Mrs. Moncado decided to accompany them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The seizure of the papers and effects in question, having been made without
When they arrived at Moncado's San Rafael Residence, Mrs Moncado noticed any search warrant, was and is illegal, and was effected in open violation of
that their belongings had been ransacked by American officers. She noticed the following provisions of the Constitution. The illegality and
that the trunks which she had kept in the attic and in the garage when she left unconstitutionality amounted to two criminal offenses one of them heavily
the house, had been ripped open and their contents scattered on the floor. punished with prision correctional. The offenses are punished by
articles 128 and 130 of the Revised Penal Code.
Lt. Olves informed Mrs Moncado that they are going to take a bundle of
documents and things, which where separated from the rest of the scattered To merit respect and obedience, a government must be just. To be just, the
things, because they proved the guilt of her husband. Mrs Moncado protested government must be good. To be good it must stick to the principles of
in vain. No receipt was issued to her. When she made inventory of her things, decency and fair play as they are understood by a common man’s sense, by
she found out that a lot of things were missing. universal conscience. Good ends does not justify foul means. What is bad per
se cannot be good because it is done to attain a good object. No wrong is
On June 27,1946 petitioner filed with the Peoples Court a motion praying for atoned by good intention. These are some of the maxims through which the
the said court to issue an Order for the return of said documents and things. common sense of decency and fair play is manifested.
Petition was however denied.
The argument that goods and personal properties illegally taken, stolen, or
Petitioner then filed before the Supreme Court on August 10, 1946 a petition snatched from the owner or possessor without a duly issued search warrant
praying that the lower court's order of denial be set aside and praying that the can be retained by the prosecution for use as evidence in a criminal case
prosecutor be restrained from using and presenting the documents and things instituted is initiated by an original and basic flaw. The argument rests on the
in question as evidence at the trial of the criminal case for treason. assumed existence or commission of a crime as its minor premise. But, under
the orderly processes of law, the assumption has yet to be proved, and it is
Issue: Whether the seized papers and effects be used as evidence against impossible to be proved before it can be of any use to support and clinch the
Moncado. argument. The prosecution is called upon to make the assumption that the
goods and properties in question are evidence of a crime. To be valid, the
Held: YES. If the search warrant were illegal or if the officer serving the assumption has to presuppose the commission or existence of the crime. That
warrant exceeded his authority, the party on whose complaint the warrant presupposition, in order to be valid, must in turn stand on an authoritative
issued, or the officer, would be responsible for the wrong done. But this is no pronouncement which can only be made in a final and executory decision
good reason for excluding the papers seized, as evidence, if they were rendered by a court of justice.
pertinent to the issue, as they unquestionably were. When papers are offered
in evidence the Court can take no notice how they were obtained, whether CASE 13: FELICIANO GALVANTE vs. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO
lawfully or unlawfully, nor would they form a collateral issue to determine that (Groyon)
question. G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008
(Note: 3 Justices dissented. Justice Bengzon, discussed the sanctity of one’s Facts: Assailed herein by Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule
home.) 65 of the Rules of Court are the October 30, 2003 Resolution of the Office of
the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices -
Justice Perfecto: Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) which dismissed for lack of probable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cause the criminal complaint, docketed as OMB-P-C-02-0109-B, filed by Federico Balolot; who all pointed their long firearms ready to fire [at]
Feliciano Galvante (petitioner) against SPO4 Benjamin Conde, PO1 Ramil me, having heard the sound of the release of the safety lock;
Avenido, PO1 Eddie Degran, PO1 Valentino Rufano, and PO1 Federico 4. That raising my arms, I heard [private respondent] PO1 Avenido
Balolot (private respondents) for arbitrary detention, illegal search and grave saying, "ANG IMONG PUSIL, IHATAG" which means "Give me your
threats; and the January 20, 2004 Ombudsman Order which denied his firearm," to which I answered, "WALA MAN KO'Y PUSIL" translated
motion for reconsideration. as "I have no firearm," showing my waistline when I raised my T-shirt;
5. That my other companions on the jeep also went down and raised
In the afternoon of May 14, 2001, private respondents confiscated from their arms and showed their waistline when the same policemen and
petitioner one colt pistol super .38 automatic with serial no. 67973, one short a person in civilian attire holding an armalite also pointed their
magazine, and nine super .38 live ammunitions. The confiscated materials firearms to them to which Mr. Percival Plaza who came down from
were covered by an expired Memorandum Receipt. his house told them not to harass me as I am also a former police
officer but they did not heed Mr. Plaza's statements;
Consequently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed against petitioner an 6. That while we were raising our arms [private respondent] SPO4
Information for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Relation to Benjamin Conde, Jr. went near my owner type jeep and conducted
Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 3258, docketed as a search. To which I asked them if they have any search warrant;
Criminal Case No. 5047. 7. That after a while they saw my super .38 pistol under the floormat of
my jeep and asked me of the MR of the firearm but due to fear that
Pending resolution of Criminal Case No. 5047, petitioner filed against private their long arms were still pointed to us, I searched my wallet and gave
respondents, among others, a criminal case, docketed as OMB-P-C-02-0109- the asked [sic] document;
B for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave Threats, before the 8. That immediately the policemen left me and my companions without
Ombudsman. saying anything bringing with them the firearm;
9. That at about 2:30 p.m., I left Mr. Percival's house and went to Trento
The petitioner narrated in his Affidavit-Complaint how, on May 14, 2001, Police Station where I saw a person in civilian attire with a revolver
private respondents aimed their long fire arms at him, arbitrarily searched his tucked on his waist, to which I asked the police officers including
vehicle and put him in detention, thus: those who searched my jeep to apprehend him also;
10. That nobody among the policemen at the station made a move to
1. That sometime on May 14, 2001 I left my house at around 1:00 apprehend the armed civilian person so I went to the office of Police
o'clock in the afternoon after having lunch to meet retired police Chief Rocacorba who immediately called the armed civilian to his
Percival Plaza and inquire about the retirement procedure for office and when already inside his office, the disarming was done;
policemen; 11. That after the disarming of the civilian I was put to jail with the said
2. That upon arrival at the house of retired police Percival Plaza, person by Police Chief Rocacorba and was released only at 4:00
together with Lorenzo Sanoria, Delfin Ramirez and Pedro Ramas o'clock in the afternoon of May 16, 2001 after posting a bailbond;
who asked for a ride from the highway in going to Sitio Cahi-an, I 12. That I caused the execution of this document for the purpose of filing
immediately went down of the jeep but before I could call Mr. Plaza, cases of Illegal Search, Grave Misconduct and Abuse of Authority
four policemen in uniform blocked my way; against SPO4 Benjamin Conde, Jr., of Trento Police Station; PO1
3. That the four policemen were [private respondents] PO1 Romil Ramil Avenido, PO1 Velantino Rufano, PO1 Federico Balolot and
Avenido, PO1 Valentino Rufano, PO1 Eddie Degran and PO1 PO1 Eddie Degran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 5047. Upon reinvestigation, Prosecutor II It is noted that the criminal complaint which petitioner filed with the
Eliseo Diaz, Jr. filed a "Reinvestigation with Motion to Dismiss" dated Ombudsman charges private respondents with warrantless search, arbitrary
November 22, 2001, recommending the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 5047 detention, and grave threats.
on the ground that "the action of the policemen who conducted the warrantless
search in spite of the absence of any circumstances justifying the same The complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal offense. The
intruded into the privacy of the accused and the security of his property.” The conduct of a warrantless search is not a criminal act for it is not penalized
RTC granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss. under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other special law. What the RPC
punishes are only two forms of searches:
Apparently unaware of what transpired in Criminal Case No. 5047,
Ombudsman Investigation & Prosecution Officer Dennis L. Garcia issued in Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse
OMB-P-C-02-0109-B, the October 30, 2003 Resolution, to wit: in the service of those legally obtained. - In addition to the
liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any
After a careful evaluation, the undersigned prosecutor finds no probable cause other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
for any of the offenses charged against above-named respondents. period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a
fine not exceeding P1,000.00 pesos shall be imposed upon
The allegations of the complainant failed to establish the factual basis of the any public officer or employee who shall procure a search
complaint, it appearing from the records that the incident stemmed from warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the
a valid warrantless arrest. The subsequent execution of an affidavit of same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary
desistance by the complainant rendered the complaint even more uncertain severity in executing the same.
and subject to doubt, especially so since it merely exculpated some but not all
of the respondents. These circumstances, coupled with the presumption of Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The
regularity in the performance of duty, negates any criminal liability on the part penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
of the respondents. periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee
who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the
above-captioned case be dismissed for lack of probable cause. absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their
default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Ombudsman which the same locality.
was subsequently dismissed.
Petitioner did not allege any of the elements of the foregoing felonies in his
Issue: WON the complaint was properly dismissed by the Ombudsman Affidavit-Complaint; rather, he accused private respondents of conducting a
search on his vehicle without being armed with a valid warrant. This situation,
Ruling: Petition lacks merit. while lamentable, is not covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his search is not a criminal offense. Nevertheless, the result achieved is the same:
vehicle is civil, under Article 32, in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the the dismissal of a groundless criminal complaint for illegal search which is not
Civil Code, which provides: an offense under the RPC. Thus, the Court need not resolve the issue of
whether or not public respondents erred in their finding on the validity of the
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private search for that issue is completely hypothetical under the circumstance.
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL
following rights and liberties of another person shall be MEETINGS
liable to the latter for damages: (Art. 131, RPC)
xxxx CASE 14: CRISANTO EVANGELISTA vs. TOMAS EARNSHAW (Guno)

G.R. No. 36453, September 28, 1932
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers,

Doctrine: When the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and
petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of
xxxx constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the
existence of the State.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
damages may also be adjudicated. Facts: This is an action of mandamus brought against the defendant mayor
of the City of Manila.
and/or disciplinary and administrative, under Section 41 of Republic Act No.
6975. The plaintiff is the president of the Communist Party in the Philippine Islands,
a political group seeking the speedy granting of independence in these Islands
To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file against private respondents a and the redemption of the proletariat, numbering over 300,000 men and
complaint for damages with the regular courts or an administrative case with women in its ranks.
the PNP/DILG, as petitioner did in Administrative Case No. IASOB-020007,
and not a criminal action with the Ombudsman. On the 2nd of March, 1931, by means of a letter to the defendant mayor of the
city, the plaintiff requested the necessary permission to hold a popular
meeting at Plaza Moriones in that city, on the afternoon of March 12, 1931, to
Public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for illegal search which
be followed by a parade through the streets of Juan Luna, Azcarraga, Avenida
petitioner filed with the Ombudsman against private respondents was
Rizal, Echague, and General Solano in order to deliver to the Governor-
therefore proper, although the reasons public respondents cited for dismissing
General a message from the laboring class.
the complaint are rather off the mark because they relied solely on the finding
that the warrantless search conducted by private respondents was valid and
The mayor of the city denied the plaintiff's petition, instructing the chief of
that the Affidavit of Desistance which petitioner executed cast doubt on the
police, to prohibit all kinds of meetings held by the Communist Party
veracity of his complaint. Public respondents completely overlooked the fact
throughout the city, because he had revoked their permits and licenses.
that the criminal complaint was not cognizable by the Ombudsman as illegal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, the Communist Party has not been able to hold any private or 1. To lead the movement for the immediate and
public meetings in the city since the 6th day of March, 1931. complete independence of the Philippines.
2. To fight and bring about the downfall of American
In refusing the requested permission and in prohibiting all meetings of the imperialism which oppresses the Philippines;
party within the city, the Communist Party claimed they had been deprived of 3. To stop the exploitation of the laborers and defend
their constitutional right. their rights and interests;
4. To establish in the Philippines a Soviet
The defendant in his answer and special defense stated that subsequent to Government under the laborers.
the issuance of the above-mentioned permit, it was discovered after an 5. To bring about the downfall of capitalism.
investigation conducted by the office of the fiscal for the City of Manila, that 6. Under the dictatorship of the laborers, to
said Communist Party of the Philippines is an illegal association, or emancipate and redeem the laborers and farm hands, — to
organization, which having for its principal object to incite the revolt of the embrace communism.
proletariat or laboring class, according to its constitution and by-laws which
states as follows: Issue: W/N the Mayor was guilty of Violation of Art. 131, RPC.
The Philippines, as a subject nation, in order to establish an Held: NO. The right of peaceful assemblage is not an absolute one. When the
independent government, has to revolt under the leadership intention and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of
of the laborers. freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to
punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority,
. . . It is clear that the different political parties of the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the existence of the State.
the burgesses are no different from another. They have but
one aim; to rise into power and exploit, with independence Considering the actions of the so-called president of the Communist Party, it
or not; to enrich themselves and strengthen the control of a is evident that he cannot expect that the defendant will permit the Communist
government which is procapitalist and proimperialist. Party to hold meetings or parades in the manner herein described. It must be
considered that the respondent mayor, whose sworn duty it is "to see that
Because of these, we need a Communist Party, nothing should occur which would tend to provoke or excite the people to
one that is not reformist but revolutionary. Only by disturb the peace of the community or the safety or order of the Government,"
revolutionary means can we demolish the slavery of man did only the right thing under the circumstances, that is, cancel and withdraw,
by another and of one nation by another nation. . . as was done, the permit previously issued by him to said Communist Party, in
The principal ideal of the C. P. P. (Communist accordance with the power granted him by law — "To grant and refuse
Party of the Philippines) in the desire to head the Philippine municipal licenses or permits of all classes and to revoke the same for
Government is different from that of the burgees political violation of the conditions upon which they were granted, or if acts prohibited
parties. Its aim is not to strengthen the capitalist by law or municipal ordinance are being committed under the protection of
government but to engender — as it cannot be avoided — such licenses or in the premises in which the business for which the same
the war of the classes and to bring about its downfall. have been granted is carried on, or for any other good reason of general
Therefore, interest."
The aims of the C. P. P. are the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of being condemned or criticised, the respondent mayor should be that would legally justify its passage and [enforcement] whether for reasons
praised and commended for having taken a prompt, courageous, and firm of public policy, public order or morality, and that therefore the enactment of
stand towards the said Communist Party of the Philippines before the latter Republic Act [No.] 4880 under the guise of regulation is but a dear and simple
could do more damage by its revolutionary propaganda, and by the seditious abridgment of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech, freedom of
speeches and utterances of its members. assembly and the right to form associations and societies for purposes not
contrary to law, x x x.” There was the further allegation that the nomination of
CASE 15: IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF a candidate and the fixing of period of election campaign are matters of
RE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF REPUBLIC ACT 4880. political expediency and convenience which only political parties can regulate
ARSENIO GONZALES and FELICISIMO R. CABIGAO vs. COMMISSION or curtail by and among themselves through self-restraint or mutual
ON ELECTIONS (Ignacio) understanding or agreement and that the regulation and limitation of these
G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969 political matters invoking the police power, in the absence of clear and present
En banc; Fernando, J. danger to the state, would render the constitutional rights of petitioners
meaningless and without effect.
(Note: Consti case sya. So hindi ko alam kung ano talaga hinahanap ni
Justice. Baka yung discussion ng clear and present danger test tsaka Issue: Whether or not RA4880 is unconstitutional (too early nomination of
dangerous tendency test lang. Haha. Nasa dulo sya ng digest. – Lotus) candidates and the limitation found therein on the period of election campaign
or partisan political activity alleged by petitioners to offend against the rights
Facts: Petitioner Cabigao was, at the time of the filing of the petition, an of free speech, free press, freedom of assembly and freedom of association)
incumbent councilor in the 4th District of Manila and the Nacionalista Party
official candidate for Vice-Mayor of Manila to which he was subsequently Held: In considering whether it is violative of any of the above rights, we
elected. Petitioner Gonzales, on the other hand, is a private individual, a cannot ignore of course the legislative declaration that its enactment was in
registered voter in the City of Manila and a political leader of his co- petitioner. response to a serious substantive evil affecting the electoral process, not
It is their claim that “the enforcement of said Republic Act No. 4880 in question merely in danger of happening, but actually in existence, and likely to continue
would prejudice their basic rights such as their freedom of speech, their unless curbed or remedied. To assert otherwise would be to close one’s eyes
freedom of assembly and their right to form associations or societies for to the realities of the situation. Nor can we ignore the express legislative
purposes not contrary to law, guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution,” purpose apparent in the proviso “that simple expressions of opinion and
and that therefore said act is unconstitutional. thoughts concerning the election shall not be considered as part of an election
campaign,” and in the other proviso “that nothing herein stated shall be
Petitioners so alleged in his action, which they entitled Declaratory Relief with understood to prevent any person from expressing his views on current
Preliminary Injunction, filed on July 22, 1967, a proceeding that should have political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of the candidates
been started in the Court of First Instance, but treated by this Court as one of for public office whom he supports.” Such limitations qualify the entire
prohibition in view of the seriousness and the urgency of the constitutional provision restricting the period of an election campaign or partisan political
issue raised. Petitioners challenged the validity of two new sections now activity.
included in the Revised Election Code, under Republic Act No. 4880, which
was approved and took effect on June 17, 1967, prohibiting the too early The prohibition of too early nomination of candidates presents a question
nomination of candidates and limiting the period of election campaign or that is not too formidable in character. According to the act: “It shall be unlawful
partisan political activity “there is nothing in the spirit or intention of the law for any political party, political committee, or political group to nominate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
candidates for any elective public office voted for at large earlier than one thereof.
hundred and fifty days immediately preceding an election, and for any other
elective public office earlier than ninety days immediately preceding an There are still constitutional questions of a serious character then to be faced,
election." The practices which the act identifies with “election campaign” or
“partisan political activity” must be such that they are free from the taint
The right of association is affected. Political parties have less freedom as to of being violative of free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, and
the time during which they may nominate candidates; the curtailment is not freedom of association. What removes the sting from constitutional
such, however, as to render meaningless such a basic right. Their scope of objection of vagueness is the enumeration of the acts deemed included in the
legitimate activities, save this one, is not unduly narrowed. Neither is there terms “election campaign” or “partisan political activity.”
infringement of their freedom to assemble. They can do so, but not for such a
purpose. We sustain its validity. We do so unanimously. They are: "(a) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other
groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any
The limitation on the period of “election campaign” or “partisan political campaign or propaganda for or against a party or candidate; (b) holding
activity” calls for a more intensive scrutiny. According to Republic Act No. political conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or
4880: “It is unlawful for any person whether or not a voter or candidate, or for other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking
any group or association of persons, whether or not a political party or political any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate or party; (c) making
committee, to in an election campaign or partisan political activity except speeches, announcements or commentaries or holding interviews f or or
during the period of one hundred twenty days immediately preceding an against the election of any party or candidate for public office; (d) publishing
election involving a public office voted for a large and ninety days immediately or distributing campaign literature or materials; (e) directly or indirectly
preceding an election for any other elective public office. The term ‘candidate’ soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against
refers to any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, any candidate or party; (f) giving, soliciting, or receiving contributions for
regardless of whether or not said person has already filed his certificate of election campaign purposes, either directly or indirectly." As thus limited, the
candidacy or has been nominated by any political party as its candidate. The objection that may be raised as to vagueness has been minimized, if not totally
term ‘election campaign’ or ‘partisan political activity’ refers to acts designed set at rest.
to have a candidate elected or not or promote the candidacy of a person or
persons to a public office x x x.” This Court, with the aforementioned five Justices unable to agree, is of the
view that no unconstitutional infringement exists insofar as the formation
The constitutional objections are thus formidable. It cannot be denied that the of organizations, associations, clubs, committees, or other groups of
limitations thus imposed on the constitutional rights of free speech and press, persons for the purpose of soliciting votes or undertaking any campaign
of assembly, and of association cut deeply into their substance. This on the or propaganda or both for or against a candidate or party is restricted
one hand. and that the prohibition against giving, soliciting, or receiving
contribution for election purposes, either directly or indirectly, is equally
On the other, it cannot be denied either that evils substantial in character taint free from constitutional infirmity.
the purity of the electoral process. There can be under the circumstances then
no outright condemnation of the statute. It could not be said to be The restriction on freedom of assembly as confined to holding political
unwarranted, much less arbitrary. There is need for refraining from the outright conventions, caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades or other
assumption that the constitutional infirmity is apparent from a mere reading similar assemblies for the purpose of soliciting votes or undertaking any
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
campaign or propaganda or both for or against a candidate or party, leaving high’ before the utterance can be punished. The danger to be guarded against
untouched all other legitimate exercise of such poses a more difficult question. is the ‘substantive evil’ sought to be prevented.” It has the advantage of
Nevertheless, after a thorough consideration, and with the same Justices establishing according to the above decision “a definite rule in constitutional
entertaining the opposite conviction, we reject the contention that it should be law. It provides the criterion as to what words may be published.”
annulled. Candor compels the admission that the writer of this opinion suffers
from the gravest doubts. For him, such statutory prescription could very well The Cabansag case likewise referred to the other test, the “dangerous
be within the outermost limits of validity, beyond which lies the abyss of tendency” rule and explained it thus: “If the words uttered create a dangerous
unconstitutionality. tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are
punishable. It is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force,
The other acts, likewise deemed included in “election campaign” or “partisan violence, or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be
political activity” tax to the utmost the judicial predisposition to view with advocated in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be
sympathy legislative efforts to regulate election practices deemed inimical, reasonably calculated to incite persons to acts of force, violence, or
because of their collision with the preferred right of freedom of expression. unlawfulness. It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the
From the outset, such provisions did occasion divergence of views among the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body
members of the Court. Originally only a minority was f or their being adjudged seeks to prevent
as invalid. It is not so any more. This is merely to emphasize that the scope
of the curtailment to which freedom of expression may be subjected is not The choice of this Court was manifest and indisputable. It adopted the clear
foreclosed by the recognition of the existence of a clear and present danger and present danger test. As a matter of fact, in an earlier decision, Primicias
of a substantive evil, the debasement of the -electoral process. v. Fugoso, there was likewise an implicit acceptance of the clear and present
danger doctrine.
***Senator Larenzo M. Tañada was asked to appear as amicus curiae. That
he did, arguing most impressively with a persuasive exposition of the This test as a limitation on freedom of expression is justified by the danger or
existence of undeniable conditions that imperatively called for regulation of evil of a substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike the
the electoral process and with full recognition that Act No. 4880 could indeed dangerous tendency doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also
be looked upon as a limitation on the preferred rights of speech and press, of present. The term clear seems to point; to a causal connection with the danger
assembly and of association, He did justify its enactment however under the of the substantive evil arising from the utterance questioned. Present refers to
clear and present danger doctrine, there being the substantive evil of the time element. It used to be identified with imminent and immediate danger.
elections, whether for national or local officials, being debased and degraded The danger must not only be probable but very likely inevitable.
by unrestricted campaigning, excess of partisanship, and undue concentration
in politics, with the loss not only of efficiency in government but of lives as well. The Bill of Rights as thus noted prohibits abridgment by law of freedom of
speech or of the press. It likewise extends the same protection to the right of
*** the people peaceably to assemble.
Cabansag v. Fernandez: two tests that may supply an acceptable
criterion for permissible restriction. Thus: “These are the ‘clear and present Assembly means a right on the part of citizens to meet peaceably for
danger’ rule and the ‘dangerous tendency’ rule. The first, as interpreted in a consultation in respect to public affairs. From the same Bustos opinion: “Public
number of cases, means that the evil consequence of the comment or policy, the welfare of society, and orderly administration of government have
utterance must be ‘extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely protection for public opinion.” To paraphrase the opinion of Justice Rufledge,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
speaking for the majority in Thomas v. Collins, it not by accident or REBELLION, INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT
coincidence that the rights to freedom of speech and of the press were (Arts. 134-136, RPC)
coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to
assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. All these CASE 16: PEOPLE vs. AMADO V. HERNANDEZ, et al (Lo)
rights while not identical. are inseparable. They are cognate rights and the GR Nos. L-6025-26. July 18, 1956
assurance afforded by the clause of this section of the Bill of Rights wherein Concepcion, J:
they are contained, applies to all. As emphatically put in the leading case of
United States v. Cruikshank, “the very idea of a government, republican in Doctrine: No complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common
form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for crimes
consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for redress of
grievances.” As in the case of freedom of expression, this right is not to be Facts: The amended Information charges accused of the crime of rebellion
limited, much less denied, except on a showing of a clear and present danger with multiple murder, arsons and robberies committed as follows:
of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.
“That on or about March 15, 1945, in the City of Manila, accused and their co-
In the United States, in the absence of an explicit provision of such character, conspirators, being then officers and/or members of, or otherwise associated
it is the view of Justice Douglas that it is primarily the first amendment of her with the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO), an active instrumentality
Constitution, which safeguards freedom of speech and of the press, of of the Communist Party of the Philippines (P.K.P.) and as such
assembly and of petition “that provides [associations] with the protection they instrumentality, fully cooperates in, and synchronizes its activities with the
need if they are to remain viable and continue to contribute to our Free rebellious activities of the ‘Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, (H.M.B.) and
Society." He adopted the view of De Tocqueville on the importance and the other organs, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Communist Party of the
significance of the freedom to associate. Thus: “The most natural privilege of Philippines (P.K.P.) to thereby assure, facilitate, and effect the complete and
man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions permanent success of the armed rebellion against the Republic of the
with those of his fellow creatures and of acting in common with them. The right Philippines, as the herein Defendants and their co-conspirators have in fact
of association therefore appears to me almost as inalienable in its nature as synchronized the activities of the CLO with the rebellious activities of the HMB
the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it without impairing the and other agencies, organs and instrumentalities of the Communist Party of
foundation of society." the Philippines and have otherwise master-minded or promoted the
cooperative efforts between the CLO and HMB and other agencies, organs,
The Constitution limits this particular freedom in the sense that there could be and instrumentalities of the P.K.P. in the prosecution of the rebellion against
an abridgment of the right to form associations or societies when their the Republic of the Philippines, and being then also high ranking officers
purposes are “contrary to law”. and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Communist Party of the
Philippines (P.K.P.), which is now actively engaged in an armed rebellion
It is submitted that it is another way of expressing the clear and present danger against the Government of the Philippines through acts therefor committed
rule for unless an association or society could be shown to create an imminent and planned to be further committed in Manila and other places in the
danger to public safety, there is no justification for abridging the right to form Philippines, and of which party the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan’ (HMB),
associations or societies. otherwise or formerly known as the ‘Hukbalahaps’ (Huks), is the armed force,
did then and there unlawfully support, promote, maintain, cause, direct and/or
command the ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan’ (HMB) or the ‘Hukbalahaps’
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Huks) to rise publicly and take arms against the Republic of the Philippines,
or otherwise participate in such armed public uprising, for the purpose of Ruling: NO. Art 48, RPC provides that: “When a single act constitutes two or
removing the territory of the Philippines from the allegiance to the more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means
government and laws thereof as in fact the said ‘Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
Bayan’ or ‘Hukbalahaps’ have risen publicly and taken arms to attain the said imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.” It is obvious, from
purpose by then and there making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, the language of this article, that the same presupposes the commission of two
attacks against police, constabulary and army detachments as well as (2) or more crimes, and, hence, does not apply when the culprit is guilty of
innocent civilians, and as a necessary means to commit the crime of rebellion, only one crime.
in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and there
committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned Article 134 of said code reads: “The crime of rebellion or insurrection is
destruction of private and public property to create and spread chaos, committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the
disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the
aforesaid purpose territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval
or other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature,
Then follows a description of the murders, arsons and robberies allegedly wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.”
perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime of
rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof.” Pursuant to Article 135 of the same code “any person, merely participating or
executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of
A petition for bail was filed by defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez on June prision mayor in its minimum period.” The penalty is increased to prision
26, 1954, and was renewed on December 22, 1955. A similar petition, filed on mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000 for “any person who promotes,
December 28, 1953, had been denied by a resolution of this court dated maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection or who, while holding any public
February 2, 1954. Although not stated in said resolution, the same was due office or employment, takes part therein”:
mainly to these circumstances:
1. “engaging in war against the forces of the government”,
The prosecution maintains that Hernandez is charged with, and has been 2. “destroying property”, or
convicted of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies, for 3. “committing serious violence”,
which the capital punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, although the 4. “exacting contributions or”
lower court sentenced him merely to life imprisonment. Upon the other hand, 5. “diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been
the defense contends, among other things, that rebellion cannot be appropriated”.
complexed with murder, arson, or robbery. Inasmuch as the issue thus raised
had not been previously settled squarely, and this court was then unable, as Whether performed singly or collectively, these five (5) classes of acts
yet, to reach a definite conclusion thereon, it was deemed best not to disturb, constitute only one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject to
for the time being, the course of action taken by the lower court, which denied only one penalty — prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.
bail to the movant.
One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said
Issue: Is there a complex crime of rebellion with murder and other common Article 135, is by “engaging in war against the forces of the government” and
crimes? “committing serious violence” in the prosecution of said “war”. These
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely; resort to arms, 1. Warrantless Arrest. Sec. 5 Rule 113. Arrest without warrant; when
requisition of property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life. Being arrest a person:
within the purview of “engaging in war” and “committing serious violence”, said a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
constitutes not two or more offense, but only one crime — that of commit an offense;(in flagrante delicto)
rebellion plain and simple. b. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
Inasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 135 constitute one single crime, to be arrest has committed it; (hot pursuit)
it follows necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of
Article 48, which requires therefor the commission of, at least, two crimes. 2. Personal knowledge of facts," in arrests without warrant must be
Hence, this court has never in the past, convicted any person of the “complex based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or
crime of rebellion with murder”. reasonable grounds of suspicion
3. Reasonable suspicion must be founded on probable cause, coupled
In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended information with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest
against Defendant-Appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders, arsons and 4. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
allegedly committed by said Defendants, as means “necessary” for the furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct
perpetration of said offense of rebellion (the ingredients of a crime form part assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes.
and parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be Arrest without warrant can be made if a continuing crime is
punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Article 48 of the committed.
Revised Penal Code); that the crime charged in the aforementioned amended 5. Mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive
information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion is absolutely not a ground for the arrest without warrant of the
with multiple murder, arsons and robberies; that the maximum penalty suspect.
imposable under such charge cannot exceed twelve (12) years of prision 6. The writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal
mayor and a fine of P20,000; that, in conformity with the policy of this court in confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his
dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar punishment, said liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from
Defendant may be allowed bail. the person entitled thereto.
Facts: This case consists of consolidated cases for petition of Habeas Corpus
CASE 17: UMIL v. RAMOS (Maranda) (marami at sinama ko nalang baka matanong -- Kal)
G.R. No. 81567 et seq., October 3, 1991
En banc; Per curiam Main case
Acting upon a confidential information received by their office about a
Doctrines: “Sparrow man” (NPA member), respondents herein who were military agents
went to St. Agnes Hospital to verify such report that an NPA member was
admitted with a gunshot wound.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
warrant, of Dural was made in compliance with the requirements of
The information further disclosed that the man admitted was allegedly one of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5, Rule 113.
among the 5 sparrows who murdered 2 Capcom mobile patrols. As per
hospital records, the wounded man’s name was Ronnie Javellon. However, it Parenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a few day after Dural's arrest,
was confirmed by the arresting officers that his actual and real name was without warrant, an information charging double murder with assault against
Rolando Dural. He was arrested without warrant. Hence, a petition for habeas agents of persons in authority was filed against Dural in the Regional Trial
corpus questioning the legality of his arrest without warrant was filed. Court of Caloocan City (Criminal Case No. C-30112). He was thus promptly
placed under judicial custody (as distinguished from custody of the arresting
Issue: Whether the arrest was valid. officers).
Ruling: Arrest without warrant is valid. Rolando Dural was arrested for being Second case
a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive Facts: Military agents(respondents) received information imparted by a
organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando former NPA about the operations of the CPP and NPA in Metro Manila and
Dural without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an that a certain house occupied by one Renato Constantine, was being used as
offense when arrested. their safehouse; that in view of this information, pursuant to a search warrant
duly issued by court, a search of the house was conducted; that when Renato
The confidential information received by the arresting officers, to the effect Constantine was then confronted he could not produce any permit to possess
that an NPA member ("sparrow unit") was being treated for a gunshot wound the firearms, ammunitions, radio and other communications equipment, and
in the named hospital, is deemed reasonable and with cause as it was based he admitted that he was a ranking member of the CPP. In the case of Wilfredo
on actual facts and supported by circumstances sufficient to engender a belief Buenaobra, he arrived at the house of Renato Constantino and admitted that
that an NPA member was truly in the said hospital. The actual facts supported he was an NPA courier and he had with him letters to Renato Constantine and
by circumstances are: first — the day before, or on 31 January 1988, two (2) other members of the rebel group. On the other hand, the arrest of Amelia
CAPCOM soldiers were actually killed in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City by five Roque was a consequence of the arrest of Buenaobra who had in his
(5) "sparrows" including Dural; second — a wounded person listed in the possession papers leading to the whereabouts of Roque (petitioner NPA
hospital records as "Ronnie Javellon" was actually then being treated in St. member); that, at the time of her arrest, the military agents found subversive
Agnes Hospital for a gunshot wound; third — as the records of this case documents and live ammunitions, and she admitted then that the documents
disclosed later, "Ronnie Javellon" and his address entered in the hospital belonged to her
records were fictitious and the wounded man was in reality Rolando Dural.
Issue: Whether the warrantless arrest was valid.
Sec. 5 (b) Rule 113 provides for warrantless arrest on the ground of probable
cause. “Probable cause" must also be coupled with acts done in good faith by Ruling: YES. They were searched pursuant to search warrants issued by a
the officers who make the arrest, the Court notes that the peace officers who court of law and were found wit unlicensed firearms, explosives and/or
arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the same in good faith, ammunition in their persons. They were, therefore, caught in flagrante delicto
considering that law enforcers are presumed to regularly perform their official which justified their outright arrests without warrant, under Sec 5(a), Rule 113,
duties. The records show that the arresting officers did not appear to have Rules of Court. Parenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a few davs
been ill-motivated in arresting Dural. It is therefore clear that the arrest, without after their arrests without warrant, informations were filed in court against said
petitioners, thereby placing them within judicial custody and disposition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Buenaobra mooted his own petition for habeas corpus by which they were arrested. Not evidence of guilt, but "probable cause" is the
announcing to this Court during the hearing of these petitions that he had reason that can validly compel the peace officers, in the performance of their
chosen to remain in detention in the custody of the authorities. duties and in the interest of public order, to conduct an arrest without warrant.
And at the time of the actual arrests, the following circumstances surrounded The courts should not expect of law-enforcers more than what the law requires
said arrests which confirmed the belief of the military agents that the of them. Under the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, particularly
information they had received was true and the persons to be arrested were paragraph (b) thereof, even if the arrested persons are later found to be
probably guilty of the commission of certain crimes: first: search warrant was innocent and acquitted, the arresting officers are not liable. But if they do not
duly issued to effect the search of the Constantine safehouse; second: found strictly comply with the said conditions, the arresting officers can be held liable
in the safehouse was a person named Renato Constantine, who admitted that for the crime of arbitrary detention, for damages under Article 32 of the Civil
he was a ranking member of the CPP, and found in his possession were Code and/or for other administrative sanctions.
unlicensed firearms and communications equipment; third: at the time of their
arrests, in their possession were unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and/or Third case (Espiritu vs. Gen. Alfredo Lim et al)
subversive documents, and they admitted ownership thereof as well as their Facts: Petitioner was arrested after speaking at a gathering of drivers and
membership in the CPP/NPA. And then, shortly after their arrests, they were sympathizers where he said among other things: “Bukas tuloy ang welga natin
positively identified by their former comrades in the organization as CPP/NPA . . . hanggang sa magkagulo na”. The Police authorities present where Espiritu
members. In view of these circumstances, the corresponding informations called for a nationwide strike (of jeepney and bus drivers) arrested him for
were filed in court against said arrested persons. according to them he was inciting to sedition.
With all these facts and circumstances existing before, during and after the Ruling: Many persons may differ as to the validity of such perception and
arrest of the afore-named persons, no prudent an can say that it would have regard the language as falling within free speech guaranteed by the
been better for the military agents not to have acted at all and made any arrest. Constitution. But, then, Espiritu had not lost the right to insist, during the pre-
That would have been an unpardonable neglect of official duty and a cause trial or trial on the merits, that he was just exercising his right to free speech
for disciplinary action against the peace officers involved. regardless of the charged atmosphere in which it was uttered. But, the
authority of the peace officers to make the arrest, without warrant, at the time
For, one of the duties of law enforcers is to arrest lawbreakers in order to place the words were uttered, or soon thereafter, is still another thing. In the
them in the hands of executive and judicial authorities upon whom devolves balancing of authority and freedom, which obviously becomes difficult at
the duty to investigate the acts constituting the alleged violation of law and to times, the Court has, in this case, tilted the scale in favor of authority but only
prosecute and secure the punishment therefor. An arrest is therefore in the for purposes of the arrest (not conviction). Let it be noted that the Court has
nature of an administrative measure. The power to arrest without warrant is ordered the bail for Espiritu's release to be reduced from P60,000.00 to
without limitation as long as the requirements of Section 5, Rule 113 are met. P10,000.00.
This rule is founded on an overwhelming public interest in peace and order in
our communities. Let it also be noted that supervening events have made the Espiritu case moot
and academic. For Espiritu had before arraignment asked the court a quo for
In ascertaining whether the arrest without warrant is conducted in accordance re-investigation, the peace officers did not appear. Because of this
with the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, this Court determines not development, the defense asked the court a quo at the resumption of the
whether the persons arrested are indeed guilty of committing the crime for
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hearings to dismiss the case. Case against Espiritu (Criminal Case No. 88- Ilagan Doctrine (from Ilagan vs. Enrile): A writ of habeas corpus is no longer
68385) has been provisionally dismissed and his bail bond cancelled. available after an information is filed against the person detained and a
warrant of arrest or an order of commitment, is issued by the court where said
Fourth case (Nazareno vs. Station Commander of Muntinlupa) information has been filed.
Facts: Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men in Alabang, Muntinlupa,
Metro Manila; and Ramil Regala, one of the suspects in the said killing, was (The petitioners claim that the said ruling, which was handed down during the
arrested and he pointed to Narciso Nazareno (petitioner) as one of his past dictatorial regime to enforce and strengthen said regime, has no place
companions during the killing of Bunye II; That on the same morning of under the present democratic dispensation and collides with the basic,
December 28, 1988, the police agents arrested Nazareno, without warrant, fundamental, and constitutional rights of the people. Petitioners point out that
for investigation. the said doctrine makes possible the arrest and detention of innocent persons
despite lack of evidence against them, and, most often, it is only after a petition
Ruling: Although the killing of Bunye II occurred on 14 December 1988, while for habeas corpus is filed before the court that the military authorities file the
Nazareno's arrest without warrant was made only on 28 December 1988, or criminal information in the courts of law to be able to hide behind the protective
14 days later, the arrest fans under Section 5(b) of Rule 113, since it was only mantle of the said doctrine. This, petitioners assert, stands as an obstacle to
on 28 December 1988 that the police authorities came to know that Nazareno the freedom and liberty of the people and permits lawless and arbitrary State
was probably one of those guilty in the killing of Bunye II and the arrest had to action.)
be made promptly, even without warrant, (after the police were alerted) and
despite the lapse of fourteen (14) days to prevent possible flight. Garcia Doctrine (from Garcia vs. Enrile): Subversion is a continuing offense,
to justify the arrest without warrant of any person at any time as long as the
Ruling on collateral issues (Sinama ko na baka matanong – Kal) authorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion of the
Issue: As to the effect of extrajudicial confessions (some petitioners offense.
admitted that they were members of NPA, owned unlicensed firearms,
ammunitions and in possession of subversive materials. Ruling: NO. There is no compelling reason at this time to disturb the same,
particularly ln the light of prevailing conditions where national security and
Ruling: These admissions, as revealed by the records, strengthen the Court's liability are still directly challenged perhaps with greater vigor from the
perception that truly the grounds upon which the arresting officers based their communist rebels. What is important is that every arrest without warrant be
arrests without warrant, are supported by probable cause, i.e. that the persons tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceeding. This Court. will promptly
arrested were probably guilty of the commission of certain offenses, in look into — and all other appropriate courts are enjoined to do the same —
compliance with Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. To note these the legality of the arrest without warrant so that if the conditions under Sec. 5
admissions, on the other hand, is not to rule that the persons arrested are of Rule 113, Rules of Court, as elucidated in this Resolution, are not met, then
already guilty of the offenses upon which their warrantless arrests were the detainee shall forthwith be ordered released; but if such conditions are
predicated. The task of determining the guilt or innocence of persons arrested met, then the detainee shall not be made to languish in his detention but must
without warrant is not proper in a petition for habeas corpus. It pertains to the be promptly tried to the end that he may be either acquitted or convicted, with
trial of the case on the merits. the least delay, as warranted by the evidence.
Issue: Whether the following doctrines should be abandoned: CASE 18: ENRILE vs. SALAZAR (Medina)
G.R. No. 92163 June 5, 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
En Banc; Narvasa, J. 48 of the Revised Penal Code rebellion may properly be complexed
with common offenses?
Doctrine: The ruling in People vs. Hernandez, i.e. that rebellion cannot be 2. Should the Hernandez ruling be applicable only to offenses
complexed with common crimes under Art. 48, remains to be good law. A committed in furtherance, or as a necessary means for the
contrary ruling would lead to an interpretation of Art. 48 that will, contrary to commission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in the course of
the intent behind the provision, impose a more severe penalty on the culprit. a rebellion which also constitute "common" crimes of grave or less
grave character?
Facts: In the afternoon of 27 February 2003, Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested 3. Should the Court maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion
on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar (RTC Quezon City absorb all other offenses committed in its course, whether or not
Branch 103) charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda necessary to its commission or in furtherance thereof?
Panlilio and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of a failed Ruling: YES. Following the Hernandez ruling, the information should be
coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was understood as charging Enrile, et al. with simple rebellion only. Therefore,
taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, since simple rebellion is a bailable offense, he is entitled to bail as a matter of
without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none right, and the case should be remanded to the trial court for bail to be fixed.
fixed in the arrest warrant.
1. NO. The majority opinion in Hernandez remains good law. This view
The following morning, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon is reinforced by the fact that Pres. Corazon Aquino saw fit to repeal
City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the PD No. 942 which precisely sought to nullify or neutralize Hernandez
Northern Police District. Sen. Enrile through counsel filed a petition for habeas by enacting a new provision into the Revised Penal Code (Art. 142-
corpus (originally a petition for certiorari and prohibition), on the grounds that A) to the effect that "when by reason, or on the occasion, of any of
his constitutional rights were violated as he was: the crimes penalized in Chapter I of Title 3 (which includes rebellion),
1. held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute acts which constitute offenses upon which graver penalties are
books; imposed by law are committed, the penalty for the most serious
2. charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no offense in its maximum period shall be imposed upon the offender."
complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was In effect, the President reinstated Hernandez as binding doctrine with
conducted, hence was denied due process; the effect of law.
3. denied his right to bail; and
4. arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the 2. NO. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes
judge who issued it first having personally determined the existence were punished separately, the following penalties would be
of probable cause. imposable upon the accused:
a. for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and
Issue: Given the crimes charged in the information, are Enrile, et al. prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon
entitled to bail? the modifying circumstances, but never exceeding 12 years
1. Should the ruling in Hernandez be abandoned in favor of the view of prision mayor; and
expressed in J. Montemayor’s dissent from Hernandez, i.e. that
rebellion cannot absorb more serious crimes, and that under Article
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum FACTS: Kamlon Hadji, together with a number of other defendants, was
period to death, depending upon the modifying charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu for different crimes in different
circumstances present. cases, namely: (1) rebellion, (2) multiple murder and multiple injuries, and (3)
In other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the kidnapping with murder and attempted murder. The cases were tried jointly.
extreme penalty could not be imposed. However, under Article 48 The judgment of the trial court were as follows:
said penalty would have to be meted out even in the absence of a (1) For the charge of rebellion: GUILTY of the CRIME OF
single aggravating circumstance. The construction of the law would SEDITION;
be unfavorable to the accused. Article 48 was enacted for the (2) For the charge of multiple murder and multiple injuries:
purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty dismissed;
more severe than that which would be proper if the several acts (3) For the charge of kidnapping with murder and attempted
performed by him were punished separately. murder: GUILTY.
3. YES. There is insufficient basis to warrant the reversal of Hernandez. The instant appeal pertains solely to the KIDNAPPING CASE for which
Thus, under the allegations of the amended information, the murders the accused, Kamlon, was found guilty and sentenced to the death
described are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly penalty.
committed by the defendants, as means "necessary" for the
perpetration of rebellion. However, although Enrile is technically Facts attending the KIDNAPPING CASE (version relied upon by the trial court
correct in saying that he is being charged with a crime that does not and upheld by the SC):
exist in the statute books insofar as rebellion may not be complexed Kamlon Hadji (KAMLON), the herein defendant, together with two other
with other offenses committed on the occasion thereof, the armed companions, ULLUH and ANGKANG, set out to look for two men
information does indeed charge the petitioner with a crime defined whom they suspected were responsible for the disappearance of two of the
and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion. followers of the defendant. Kamlon and his companions chanced upon Hatib
Ajibun (HATIB) and Jamalul Alling (JAMALUL). Hatib and Jamalul were
SEDITION brought to Kamlon under the threat of being killed. Kamlon made known to his
(Art. 139, RPC) captives the reason for their abduction, and, although Ajibun and Alling
disavowed any knowledge or responsibility for the disappearance of the two
CASE 19: PEOPLE v. HADJI, et al. (Molina) persons Kamlon was seeking to avenge, their protestations of innocence were
G.R. No. L-12686, October 24, 1963 disbelieved and altogether unheeded.
En Banc; Per Curiam
Hatib and Jamalul were detained overnight. The next day, they were brought
DOCTRINE: Common crimes are distinct and separable from the crime to the market place and, in a store, they were made to sit on chairs, one beside
of Sedition (A139) the other. On being ordered by Kamlon, their hands were then tied to the roof
*Here, defendant Kamlon was challenging on appeal the propriety of his by Ulluh. Thus seated and with their hands tied to the roof, Kamlon leveled his
separate conviction for the kidnapping case when it should have been automatic carbine at Jamalul and fired, killing him instantly. Kamlon then
absorbed in the conviction for sedition ordered Ulluh to cut the neck of the dead man whereupon Ulluh, with a barong
or native bolo, did as he was bidden. Ulluh then brought the headless body
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the severed head to his vinta by the shore and paddled out far into the
sea. When he returned, he no longer had with him his gruesome load. Same; Case of CABREARA
In the Cabrera case, this Court held:
Meanwhile, Kamlon decided to spare Hatib from the fate he imposed on It is merely stating the obvious to say that sedition is not the same
Jamalul. Jamalul was "tried' by Kamlon for his alleged participation in the offense as murder. Sedition is a crime against public order; murder
disappearance of two of his followers. Jamalul was merely told to raise the is a crime against persons. Sedition is a crime directed against
sum of P105.00 as fine and thereafter he was set free. the existence of the State, the authority of the government, and
the general public tranquility; murder is a crime directed against
Defendant’s Version (not relied upon by any court) the lives of individuals. (U.S. v. Abad [1902], 1 Phil. 437.) Sedition
It was alleged that the victims were attacked by the relatives of a woman they in its more general sense is the raising of commotions or
were abducting. disturbances in the state; murder at common law is where a
person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills any human
Critical point of defendant’s appeal: being, in the peace of the sovereign, with malice aforethought,
Citing the cases of People v. Hernandez, et al., 52 O.G. 5506 and People v. express or implied.
Geronimo, 53 O.G. No. 1, p. 68, Kamlon argues that "the trial court erred in
convicting herein accused for kidnapping with murder in spite of the fact The offenses charged in the two informations for sedition and murder
that said acts of violence were committed in furtherance of sedition and are perfectly distinct in point of law however nearly they may be
therefore absorbed in this latter crime." connected in point of fact. Not alone are the offenses com nomine
different, but the allegations in the body of the information are
Issue: Did the trial court err in not considering the acts of violence as having different. The gist of the information for sedition is the public and
been committed in furtherance of sedition? tumultuous uprising of the constabulary in order to attain by force and
outside of legal methods the object of inflicting an act of hate and
Ruling: NO. The trial court correctly ruled against the absorption of the revenge upon the persons of the police force of the city of Manila by
common crime of kidnapping with murder in the crime of sedition. firing at them in several places in the city of Manila; that gist of the
information in the murder case is that the Constabulary, conspiring
No Legal Basis together, illegally and criminally killed eight persons and gravely
There is neither law nor jurisprudence which can allow this Court to uphold wounded three others. The crimes of murder and serious physical
the defendant's claim that acts of violence like murder and kidnapping are injuries were not necessarily included in the information for sedition;
absorbed by sedition. The aforecited cases of Hernandez and and the defendants could not have been convicted of these crimes
Geronimo,supra, cannot properly be invoked as authority for that legal under the first information. (Emphasis supplied)
proposition since those two cases involved the crime of rebellion and not
sedition. Same; Case of UMALI
And, in the case of People v. Umali, supra, after rejecting the government's
Indeed, as this Court adheres to and is guided in great measure by the rule of theory that the crime committed was rebellion complexed with multiple
stare decisis, We deem ourselves unfree at the moment to disregard our murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery, but rather We proceeded to
rulings in the cases of People v. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64, and People v. Umali, convict the defendants therein of the said crime of sedition and the common
G.R. No. L-5803, Nov. 29, 1954. crimes of murder, frustrated murder, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
election as Congressman. However, in the words of Punzalan, Umali became
Clearly then, the rule obtaining in this jurisdiction allows for the jealous because of his fast growing popularity among the people of Tiaong
treatment of the common offenses of murder etc. as distinct and who looked to him instead of Umali for political guidance, leadership, and
independent acts separable from sedition. favors. From then on, they ceased to have any dealings with each other. They
even filed mutual accusations against each other (umali allegedly induced the
Same; Case of HERNANDEZ and GERONIMO special policemen of Punzalann to join Huks and Punzalan allegedly disarmed
In citing the cases of Hernandez and Geronimo, supra, it seems to Us that the Umali’s men and charged them with illegal possession of firearms but
herein defendant missed a very significant point. When We held in those two eventually the cases were dismissed) Punzalan ran for reelection against
cases that murder and other acts of violence were absorbed by Pasumbal. Umali supported and actively campaigned for Pasumbal. The pre-
"rebellion," the common crimes alleged to have been committed in election campaign was intense and bitter, even ruthless. Punzalan and Umali
furtherance of the rebellion were specifically charged in the information bitterly attacked each other during political campaign. Umali even told the
and, for that reason, were consequently necessarily alleged to have voters that even if Punzalan won the election, he would not sit for blood will
been committed for political ends. flow, and that he (Umali) had already prepared a golden coffin for him
(Punzalan). (so basically, eto yung history ng LQ nila)
Application to Facts
In the prosecution at bar, however, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, According to the testimony of Mendoza, in the morning of November 12th, that
"the information makes no allegation of political motivation, and the is, on the eve of the election, at the house of Pasumbal's father, he heard
evidence is totally devoid of any such motivation, for on the contrary, Umali instruct Pasumbal to contact the Huks through Commander Abeng so
the proof adduced shows that the killing had no political or social color, that Punzalan will be killed, Pasumbal complying with the order of his Chief
but purely motivated by personal vengeance." (Umali) went to the mountains and held a conference with Commander Abeng.
It would seem that Umali and Pasumbal had a feeling that Punzalan was going
to win in the elections the next day, and that his death was the surest way to
CASE 20: PEOPLE vs. UMALI (Pagdanganan) eliminate him from the electoral fight but that Commander Abeng suggested
G.R. No. L-5803, November 29, 1954 that Pasumbal may yet win the election the following day, thereby rendering
En banc unnecessary the raid and the killing of Punzalan. Mendoza told the court that
with the due to the victory of Punzalan, on November 14, Abeng and his troops
Doctrine: If the attack was not exactly against the Government it is not numbering about fifty with Pasumbal, armed with garands and carbines went
rebellion. The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local to Punzalan's house and attacked it with automatic weapons, hand grenades,
Government. Rather, the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, and even with bottles filled with gasoline (popularly known as Molotov's
etc. one object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or cocktail) with the purpose of killing him. Mrs Punzalan together with her
property of a public official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong. children ran out of the house and went to hide in the house of a neighbor.
Hence the crime committed is sedition. According to a witness, he saw Umali holding revolver and other armed men
in the lanzones grove belonging to the father of Umali (near the house of
Facts: (To understand the reason for and object of the raid) Umali and Punzalan) As a diversionary measure, part of the attacking force, the camp or
Punzalan were old time friends belonging to same political faction. Umali station of the Army was fired upon, not exactly to destroy or drive out that
campaigned for Punzalan who later was elected Mayor of Tiaong. Punzalan Army unit but to keep it from going to the rescue and aid of the main objective
in his turn campaigned and worked for Narciso Umali resulting in the latter's of the raid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(eto hindi nadiscuss sa case pero nasa information) raid took place resulting (Considering that, assuming for the moment that there is no such complex
in the burning down and complete destruction of the house of Mayor crime of rebellion with murder, etc., and that consequently appellants could
Punzalan, the house of Robles and one Mortega and that during and after not have been legally charged with, much less convicted of said complex
the burning of the houses, some of the raiders engaged in looting, robbing crime, and the information should therefore, be regarded as having charged
one house and two Chinese stories. The raid resulted to the death of more than one offense, contrary to Rule 106, section 12 and Rule 113, section
Patrolman Pisigan and two civilians and the wounding of Patrolman Lacorte 2 (e), of the Rules of Court, but that appellants having interposed no objection
and five civilians thereto, they were properly tried for and lawfully convicted if guilty of the
several, separate crimes charged therein) –just in case matanong
The participation of Pasumbal and Capino was duly established as they
were seen in the yard of Punzalan firing at the house with automatic The crime committed here was not rebellion but rather that of sedition. The
weapons and hand grenades. purpose of the raid and the act of the raiders in rising publicly and taking up
arms was not exactly against the Government and for the purpose of doing
criminal responsibility of Umali was also established, tho indirectly. the things defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal code under rebellion.
Mendoza heard his instruction to Pasumbal and was seen with other Huks The raiders did not even attack the Presidencia, the seat of local Government.
holding revolver in the lanzones grove. Rather, the object was to attain by means of force, intimidation, etc. one
object, to wit, to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the person or property
Defense: Umali and Pasumbal claim that during the raid, they were in the of a public official, namely, Punzalan was then Mayor of Tiaong. Under Article
home of Pasumbal in Taguan, about seven kilometers away from Tiaong 139 of the same Code this was sufficient to constitute sedition.
where a consolation party was being held
As regards the crime of robbery with, the Court is also of the opinion that it
CFI Judgment: The accused are guilty of complex crime of rebellion with was not one of the purposes of the raid, which was mainly to kidnap or kill
multiple murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery. According to the trial Punzalan and destroy his house. The robberies were actually committed by
court, the house of Pasumbal is only about seven kilometers and the stillness only some of the raiders, presumably dissidents, as an afterthought, the
and darkness of the night, the burning of houses and the firing of weapons articles being intended presumably to replenish the supplies of the dissidents
must have been seen by them. The natural and logical reaction on the part of in the mountains. For these robberies, only those who actually took part
Umali and Pasumbal would have been to rush to Tiaong since their relatives therein are responsible, and not the three appellants herein.
reside there. And yet, they fled in the opposite direction towards Candelaria.
And Umali fled to manila on November 16. This prompted the trial court in its With respect to the crime of multiple frustrated murder, while the assault upon
decision to repeat the old saying "The guilty man flees even if no one pursues, policeman Lacorte caused him injuries resulting in his blindness in one eye,
but the innocent stands bold as a lion. may be regarded as frustrated murder; the wounding of five civilians should
be considered as mere physical injuries.
Umali, Pasumbal, and Capino appealed directly to the Tribunal.
The crimes committed are, therefore, those of sedition, multiple murder,
Issue: Is the judgment of the CFI correct? arson, frustrated murder and physical injuries. The murders may not be
qualified by evident premeditation because the premedition was for the killing
Ruling: NO. of Punzalan. The killing may, however, be qualified by treachery, the raiders
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
using firearms against which the victims were defenseless, with the different and separate informations, that would not place them in double
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. jeopardy, because those previous charges were being specified in the
information only as a bill of particulars for the purpose of describing in
detail the offense of sedition, but not to hold the defendants liable for
PENALTY FOR SEDITION punishment under said separate and different specifications; in other
(Art. 140, RPC) words, the specifications describing separate crimes were alleged in the
information merely to complete the narration of facts which constitute the
CASE 21: PEOPLE v. CAMERINO (Pedrozo) crime of sedition.
G.R. No. L-13484, May 20, 1960
RTC
Doctrine: In specifying the separate and different criminal acts attributed to Sustained motion to quash and dismissing the information on the ground that
the defendants, it was not the purpose or intention of the Government to hold the information charged more than one offense (other grounds not important
them criminally liable in the present proceedings, but merely to complete the according to SC)
narration of facts.
Issue: WON the Information charged more than one offense.
Facts: Dominador Camerino and 86 others were accused before the CFI of
Cavite of the crime of sedition. The said accused in having allegedly Ruling: NO. The accused herein were being charged only with one offense,
perpetrated for political and social ends, insistent, repeated and continuous namely, that of sedition, defined in Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code, as
acts of hate, terrorism and revenge against private persons, leaders, members amended by Commonwealth Act No. 202, and penalized under Article 140 of
and sympathizers of the Nacionalista Party in the town of Bacoor, Cavite, and the same code.
frustrating by force, threats and violence, and intimidation the free expression
of the popular will in the election held on November 10, 1953. The 14 different acts or specifications charging some or all of the
accused with having committed the offenses charged therein, were
The information described in detail the manner in which the alleged seditious included in the information merely to describe and to narrate the
acts were performed, specifying the dates and the places where they were different and specific acts the sum total of which constitutes the crime
committed and the persons who were victims thereof, under fourteen different of sedition. Different and separate acts constituting different and separate
overt acts of sedition. offenses may serve as a basis for prosecuting the accused to hold them
criminally liable for said different offenses. Yet, those different acts of
Motion to Quash Information by accused offenses may serve merely as a basis for the prosecution of one single
Before arraignment, 48 of the 87 accused, headed by Camerino offense like that of sedition.
Ground: Double jeopardy, claiming in support thereof that they had been
previously convicted or been in jeopardy of being convicted and/or acquitted For instance, one may be accused of sedition, and at the same time be
of the offense charged in other cases of the same nature before the court. prosecuted under another information for murder or homicide as the case may
be, if the killing was done in pursuance of and to carry out the acts
The Assistant Provincial Fiscal constituting sedition.
Filed written opposition to the motion saying that although it was alleged in the
information that the accused had been charged with various crimes under
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the information filed in this case did not charged more than vehicle were just meters away; that the defendant fired two shots with his
one offense but only that of sedition; that in specifying the separate and shotgun against the car of Gomez and projectiles got in the car body
different criminal acts attributed to the defendants, it was not the purpose or thereof; that among the detainees vehicles had a jitney property of Ricardo
intention of the Government to hold them criminally liable in the present Mendoza who recognized among the people who head them to the accused
proceedings, but merely to complete the narration of facts, though because it was well lit by the light cast by the lanterns of the jitney.
specifying different offenses which as a whole, supposedly constitute the
crime of sedition. Consequently, the information is valid. RTC judgment
The Court of First Instance of Laguna found him guilty of rebellion and
CASE 22: JOSE LEAGUE vs. PEOPLE (Quintos) sentenced him to the indeterminate sentence of two years, four months and
G.R. No. L- 47367, September 2, 1941 one day of prision correctional to eight years and one day of imprisonment,
and a fine of P10, 000 , plus the costs of prosecution.
Doctrine: Rebellion is a rising that affects a large portion of territory; it is
national and not the local in character, and have purely political purpose." The Appellants’ defense
SC confirmed the CA's decision of finding appellant League guilty of rebellion The appellant defended in the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal.
and sentenced him to the indeterminate sentence of two years, four months He tried to prove an alibi, saying that on the occasion of the crime, he was in
and one day of prision correctional to eight years and one day of Manila.
imprisonment, and a fine of P10,000, plus the costs of prosecution.
Issue: Is appellant guilty of the crime of Rebellion?
Facts: Jose League accused was the party treasurer-general called
Sakdalista aimed at obtaining the absolute independence of the Philippines
before the end of 1935. Sakdalistas that planned an armed uprising in several Ruling: YES. The rebellion has more transcendental purposes, and its effects
provinces, especially the Laguna; that on the night of May 2, 1935 telegraph are more serious and more damaging to the government, that of sedition,
wires connecting the phone and the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, with because it is a part or all of the Philippine territory or any body of his armed
neighboring towns and Manila were cut, electric lighting and houses closed force, or strip the CEO or the Legislature of some or all of its prerogatives or
off; that armed men stood in the road to stop the passage of the vehicles, powers. This, or at least get the absolute independence by force of arms, by
requisitioning passengers and robbing them carrying weapons; several the end of 1935 that was when I occurred the uprising, make this take place
hundreds of sakdalistas, provided with bands, flags and a variety of weapons, in several provinces, and take the municipality of Santa Rosa, occupying the
marched in groups to take over the municipal building in Santa Rosa and municipal building to sustraerlode obedience to constituted government, it is
subtract the municipality of obedience to the duly constituted what they set out the put the appellant and his henchmen or sakdalistas that
government. There was a bloody encounter between those sakdalistas and was treasurer to take up arms, as they rose, going so far as to attack the
Constabulary who were sent to restore order; there have been killed and Constables who had gone there to restore order, causing them some
wounded in this encounter. That among the vehicles that sakdalistas tried to casualties.
stop car at night cars Feliciano Gomez lawyer who was in the passenger with
several members of his family was; that failure to stop that car to the intimation The purpose of sedition, under Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code referred,
of sakdalistas was shot by them; that Jose League, the appellant here, was which remains the same because the amendments introduced in the Law No.
among those armed people who tried to stop the car Gomez attorney. This 217 of the Commonwealth, which came into force one year after having
was seen by wintesses Damian Hernandez at a distance from where the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committed the crime of cars they are not substantial, they are different. Are Facts: Defendant was accused of the crime of conspiring to commit sedition.
these: After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Richard Campbell, judge, in his
decision, made the following findings of fact:
1st prevent the enactment of laws, the execution thereof, or the
celebration of a popular election; The defendant, Maximino Planas, was the president of the town of Bambang,
Nueva Vizcaya.
2nd Prevent the Insular Government or any provincial or municipal
government or its officials the free exercise of their duties or the September 1, 1910 - an uprising or insurrection against the authority of the
performance of any administrative order; US in the Philippine Islands, and having for its object the overthrow of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, and provincial and municipal
governments of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya and other provinces in the
3rd exercise any act of hatred or revenge on the person or property
Philippine Islands, took place in and about the township of Solano in the
of any public official or employee;
Province of Nueva Vizcaya.
4th exercise with a political or social purpose any act of hatred or September 3, 1910 - Maximino Planas called together the policemen of the
revenge against individuals or social class. said town of Bambang, four of them, and said “The insurrectos have entered
Solano and seized the money from the treasury, burned the papers, and made
Looting 5th, with a political or social order, of all or part of their prisoners of the padres. Now you must bring your arms to my house so that I
property to any person, the municipality, the province or island can deliver them to the insurrectos when they reach here and you must all be
governments or the United States. ready to join the insurrectos when they reach Bambang because I am captain
of insurrectos, and when they come we will kill the Americans Bennett and
The acts performed by the appellant and his henchmen do not fit into any of Scott and the Romanista padre, and burn the convent. Do not tell anything of
the remaining listed in that article that speaks of sedition. this to the Americans or the insurrectos will kill you when they come,” or words
to that effect.
In view of the facts declared proven the Court of Appeals, and considering the
reasons for the judgment of the Court, under revision, it is adjusted to the September 4, 1910 - councilmen of Bambang assembled at the presidencia
law; hereby we confirm the same and condemn the appellant to pay the costs of said town in obedience to a call or bandillo which had been published the
of the proceedings. So it is ordered. previous evening in said town by the defendant. Accused then repeated
substantially the same conversation as he had with the policemen.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
A complaint was filed stating that the defendant did conspire to rise publicly
(Art. 141, RPC)
and tumultuously in order to attain by force or outside of legal methods:
1. the infliction of acts of hate or revenge upon officials or agents of the
CASE 23: THE UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO PLANAS (Sanchez)
Insular Government, the provincial government of Nueva Vizcaya, and the
G.R. No. 6867. December 23, 1911
municipal government of Bambang;
EN BANC
2. the infliction, with a political or social object, of acts of hate or
revenge upon certain individuals or classes of individuals in the Islands,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the despoliation, with a political or social object, of certain classes of
persons, natural and artificial, in the township of Bambang, the Province of INCITING TO SEDITION
Nueva Vizcaya, and the Insular Government, and the property thereof; (Art. 142, RPC)
3. and did utter seditious words tending to instigate others to cabal or
meet together for unlawful purposes, suggesting or inciting rebellious CASE 24: Espuelas vs People (Santos)
conspiracies, tending to stir up the people against the lawful authorities G.R. No. L-2990, December 17, 1951
and tending to disturb the peace of the community and the safety and
order of the Government, and did knowingly conceal such evil practices Facts: On June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in the town of
from the constituted authorities; contrary to law." Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza had his picture taken, making
it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope
Defendant was arrested and he pleaded "not guilty." Honorable Richard suspended form the limb of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely
Campbell, judge, found the defendant guilty of conspiring to commit standing on a barrel. After securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent
sedition and sentenced him to be imprisoned for three years, to pay a fine of copies of same to Free Press, the Evening News, the Bisayas, Lamdang of
P1,000. Defendant appealed. general circulation and other local periodicals in the Province of Bohol but also
throughout the Philippines and abroad, for their publication with a suicide note
Issues: or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written by a fictitious suicide,
1. Did the court err in not dismissing the case for the reason that the complaint Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter's supposed wife translation of
was defective? which letter or note, stating his dismay and administration of President Roxas,
2. Did the court err in finding that the evidence introduced at the trial by the pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte, and directing his wife his
prosecution justifies the conviction of the defendant? dear wife to write to President Truman and Churchill of US and tell them that
3. Did the court err in not acquitting the defendant, inasmuch as his guilt was in the Philippines the government is infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis.
not proved beyond all reasonable doubt?
Issue: Whether the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art. 142 of the
Ruling: RPC against the Government of the Philippines?
1. When no objection is made to the sufficiency of the complaint in the
court below, the objection will not be considered on appeal. Objections of this Held: Yes. The accused must therefore be found guilty as charged. And there
character cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. being no question as to the legality of the penalty imposed on him, the decision
2. The other two assignments of error relate only to the sufficiency of will be affirmed with costs.
the evidence. Many witnesses were presented both by the government and
the defendant. The facts were conclusively and overwhelmingly proven by the Analyzed for meaning and weighed in its consequences, the article written
testimony of the prosecution which consisted of the evidence of four bybthe accused, cannot fail to impress thinking persons that it seeks to sow
policemen of the town of Bambang, three councilmen of said town, and its the seeds of sedition and strife. The infuriating language is not a sincere effort
municipal treasurer and his clerk. to persuade, what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to
martyrdom and what with is failure to particularize. When the use irritating
We are of the opinion that the findings of fact made by the lower court are in language centers not on persuading the readers but on creating disturbances,
accordance with such evidence, and show that the defendant was guilty of the the rationable of free speech cannot apply and the speaker or writer is
crime charged beyond per-adventure of doubt. removed from the protection of the constitutional guaranty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
councilors who were in Manila were placed in the hands of Dedicatora who
If it be argued that the article does not discredit the entire governmental was coming to Manila.
structure but only President Roxas and his men, the reply is that article 142
punishes not only all libels against the Government but also "libels against any Basa presided over the meeting as chairman because Alipit had not arrived
of the duly constituted authorities thereof." The "Roxas people" in the at the agreed time. While the meeting was held, chief of police Victorio Alemus
Government obviously refer of least to the President, his Cabinet and the entered the room, saying that he had an order from the president to arrest
majority of legislators to whom the adjectives dirty, Hitlers and Mussolinis were vice-president Basa. Councilor Dominador Delfino persuaded Alemus to wait
naturally directed. On this score alone the conviction could be upheld. until the meeting was over. A few minutes later, Alipit and after taking one of
the revolvers in the police office, fired a shot in the air, entered the room where
Regarding the publication, it suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots the meeting was being held and said loudly to Alemus, "Arrest him, arrest
and tends to stir up people against the constituted authorities, or to provoke him," pointing to Basa. Alemus obeyed the order, holding the vice-president
violence from opposition who may seek to silence the writer. Which is the sum by the arm and taking him to the jail, Alipit following them with revolver in hand.
and substance of the offense under consideration.
Shortly afterwards, Delfino asked Alipit if they could continue the meeting, to
The essence of seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir which Alipit answered: "Whoever dare continue holding the meeting will be
up general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses; that is to say to induce arrested." The councilors then dispersed. Alipit ordered the taking of the books
people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the and documents used in the meeting and went to Calamba where he obtained
Constitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds. from the Constabulary three armed soldiers to protect him against any
possible attack from Basa. By his order, the three soldiers watched Basa and
ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY held him incommunicated in the jail until about 2:00 a.m., when he was
AND OTHER SIMILAR BODIES released by the provincial governor.
(Art. 143, RPC)
Alipit and Alemus were charged with coercion and convicted of coercion
CASE 25: PEOPLE v. ALIPIT (Medina) through illegal detention. They were sentenced to five months of arresto
mayor and a fine of 1,500 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
Doctrine: insolvency, the accessory penalties and costs.
Facts: Exequiel Alipit had been elected municipal president of Cabuyao, Issues:
Laguna. However, Dedicatora, et al. petitioned for his election not to be (1) Is the special meeting a lawful assembly, considering the lack of notice to
confirmed since Alipit was allegedly a minor. some of the councilors of the municipality?
(2) Were the accused charged with and convicted of the proper offense and,
30 May 1920—The municipal council held an extraordinary meeting, which therefore, adjudged the proper penalty?
was called at the instance of two councilors. Notices had been prepared for (3) May Alemus invoke the justifying circumstance of obedience to a superior?
all the members of the council, although those addressed to the municipal
president and some councilors were not delivered to their addresses. Alipit Ruling:
and the other councilors were absent from the municipality when an attempt (1) YES. Despite the lack of notice to some of the councilors, there were five
was made to deliver to them the notice of that meeting; thus, notices to the councilors present at the meeting, constituting a quorum. In American
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jurisprudence (which was applicable at the time), where the members of a Basquial were conducting routinary patrol on board a police car somewhere
council are absent from the municipality, the necessity of notice is dispensed in Shilan, La Trinidad, Benguet when they came upon a truck unloading sacks
with. Furthermore, the meeting was not apparently illegal. Thus, it enjoys the of chicken dung at the stall of accused Enrique Totoy Rivera which was
presumption of regularity, and nobody has the right to dissolve, through located along the Halsema Highway at Shilan, La Trinidad, Benguet. Inspector
violence, the meeting of a council under the present of the existence of such Leygo advised the driver to stop unloading the manure as it violates La
a legal defect which was not apparent, but required an investigation before it Trinidad Municipal Ordinance No. I-91 (Exhibit C) which prohibits, among
could be determined. others, the loading and unloading of chicken manure along the sidewalks or
road shoulders or within 15 meters from the center of the Halsema Highway
(2) NO. The proper charge should have been a violation of Act 1175. Under located at La Trinidad, Benguet. The driver complied with the police directive.
the statute, any person who willfully or by force or fraud prevent or attempts The policemen then escorted the truck back to Poblacion, La Trinidad,
to prevent, inter alia, the meeting or organizing of any provincial board or Benguet and proceeded to the police headquarters. Not long after, the said
municipal or township council, or who is guilty of any disorderly conduct in the truck returned and was again stop by police officers under Inspector Leygo,
immediate view or presence of any such body tending to interrupt the Leygo told them that he would be proceeding to the area.
proceedings of such body or to impair the respect due to its authority, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than P2,000.00 or by imprisonment for not Meanwhile, back at Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet, Enrique Totoy Rivera arrived
more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court. before the group of Inspector Leygo did and ordered the driver not to obey the
policemen but instead obey him, as he was the boss. The truck driver followed
(3) NO. Alipit’s order was in the first place unlawful. Thus, he cannot be Rivera’s order and drove the truck towards Shilan, La Trinidad, Benguet with
absolved from criminal liability. the Rivera following closely behind in his vehicle. Inspector Leygo and his
group arrived in time to see the truck pulling away and so they gave chase.
DIRECT ASSAULTS The police were able to overtake and stop the truck at Dengsi, Tomay, La
(Art. 148, RPC) Trinidad, Benguet. Inspector Leygo confronted the truck driver and asked him
why he still insisted on proceeding to Shilan to unload chicken manure despite
CASE 26: RIVERA vs. PEOPLE (Tabilog) the fact that he was ordered to go back earlier in the evening. The truck driver
G.R. No. 138553, June 30, 2005 stated that he was just following the orders of Rivera. Immediately, Inspector
Garcia, J. Leygo turned around to see Rivera who had at that time alighted from his
vehicle behind the truck. Inspector Leygo asked Rivera why he insisted on
Doctrine: Rivera’s case falls under the second mode, which is the more defying the ban on the unloading and loading of chicken manure. Instead of
common form of assault and is aggravated when: answering however, Rivera pointed a finger on the policeman and uttered
words like Babalian kita ng buto (I’ll break your bones). Ilalampaso kita (I’ll
a. the assault is committed with a weapon; or scrub you). Pulis lang kayo (you are only policemen) and other unsavory and
b. when the offender is a public officer or employee; or insulting words. Inspector Leygo who was a little bit angry warned the accused
c. when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority. to stop uttering further insulting words and cautioned him to take it easy and
then informed him that he was being arrested for violation of the chicken dung
Facts: On March 20, 1993 at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening, Police ordinance. Rivera removed his jacket, placed it inside the vehicle, assumed a
Inspector Edward M. Leygo, Deputy Chief of Police for Operation and Patrol fighting stance and challenged the policeman. Inspector Leygo then
of the La Trinidad Police Station, La Trinidad, Benguet and SPO1 Joseph approached Rivera and warned him anew that he was being arrested. Rivera
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
responded by punching Inspector Leygo on his face, particularly on his lip. and the defense are one in saying that it was only petitioner who was in
The two then grappled as Inspector Leygo tried to hold Rivera. Finally, with confrontation with Lt. Leygo. Evidently, petitioners anger started to burst when
the help of Policemen Dayap and Bongcado, Rivera was subdued. The the truck driver reported to him that Lt. Leygo prohibited the unloading of the
accused was then pushed into one of the police cars but he resisted until chicken dung and ordered him to return, such that when the same delivery
Alfredo Castro, one of the chicken dung dealers in the area, boarded the truck was again intercepted by Lt. Leygo’s group, petitioners anger was too
police car to accompany him. much for him to contain. We quote with approval what the trial court has said
in its decision:
Crime charged: Direct Assault
RTC ruling: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Direct Assault The accused, however, denies that he ever laid hands on the cop. But the
CA ruling: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Direct Assault bigger question is, how then did the policeman sustain his injuries? It is highly
improbable, if not absurd, for the policeman to inflict it on himself. It is also
Issue: Whether or not Reyes is guilty of Direct Assault very unlikely that his co-policemen would punch him just to make it appear
that the accused did it. The accused admits of being at the place. He admits
Ruling: YES. Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed having been confronted by the policeman but he denies that he ever lifted a
in two ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, finger against the policeman. Yet all the witnesses both for the prosecution
shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes and the defense are in accord in saying that it was only the accused who was
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, by in confrontation with the policeman. The only logical conclusion that can be
any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall attack, employ derived from this is that it is indeed the accused who punched the policeman.
force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of the credible
agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of witness but it must be credible in itself. No better test has yet been found to
such performance. Unquestionably, petitioner’s case falls under the second measure the value of the testimony of a witness than its conformity to the
mode, which is the more common form of assault and is aggravated when: (a) knowledge and common experience of mankind
the assault is committed with a weapon; or (b) when the offender is a public
officer or employee; or (c) when the offender lays hand upon a person in We have consistently ruled that the trial court judge is in the best of position
authority. to see and observe the demeanor, actuation and countenance of a witness,
matters which are not normally expressed in the transcripts of his testimony.
In any event, this Court has said time and again that the assessment of the We see no reason, therefore, to disturb the following observations of the trial
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court in its decision: The demeanor of the accused on the witness stand also
court, what with reality that it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses shows that he is the kind who is impatient with authority. His manner of
first-hand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude while testifying. answering questions bespeaks of one who has trouble abiding with
Its findings on such matters, absent, as here, of any arbitrariness or oversight authority. He portrayed a very aggressive manner and his answers were
of facts or circumstances of weight and substance, are final and conclusive always on the defensive as if he had every right in this world to do and say
upon this Court and will not to be disturbed on appeal. whatever he wanted to. Over all, he exuded an aura of arrogance and
defiance of authority.
We are not persuaded. The evidence on record clearly bears out that it was
Lt. Leygo who was attacked by petitioner, not the other way around, as CASE 27: PEOPLE vs. RECTO (Tamondong)
petitioner would want us to believe. Both the witnesses for the prosecution G.R. No. 129069. October 17, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
En banc; Panganiban, J. Melchor Recto saw the shooting from his hiding place behind a concrete
pillar. He then ran inside the old dilapidated bathroom of the
Doctrine: An agent of a person in authority is any person who, by direct bodega. Barangay Captain Orbe also followed. Inside the bathroom, Melchor
provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is Recto peeped through the window and saw Appellant Recto fire his gun at
charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security Emilio Santos. Santos also fired his revolver at appellant and later, turned
of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and around and crawled. While crawling, Santos fired another shot towards Regis,
barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority. Jr, but, the latter was able to reach and hack the former with a bolo.
A barangay chief tanod is clearly an agent of a person in authority.
Amidst the din, Percival Orbe and Melchor Recto heard Appellant Julio Recto
Facts: A meeting was held on April 18, 1994 at Ambulong, Magdiwang, saying: Where is that kapitan? When Melchor could no longer see Julio Recto,
Sibuyan Island, Romblon to settle the issue on the land dispute involving Linda he jumped out of the bathroom window and ran. While running, Julio Recto
Rance and Cornelio Regis, Jr. While the meeting was in progress, Brgy Capt shot him hitting the latters thigh. Barangay Captain Orbe also got out of the
Percival Orbe was summoned by SPO4 Fortunato Rafol to proceed to the bathroom through the top and landed onto the ricefield. Before he could take
bodega of Rance. There, they noticed that the padlock of the bodega was a step, he was also shot by Appellant Julio Recto at his right elbow, but was
destroyed, and the palay stored therein, stolen. At this point, Barangay Tanod still able to continue running and cross the southern portion of the ricefield. He
Melchor Recto passed by. He saw SPO4 Rafol, Wilfredo Arce, Spouses caught up with the wounded Melchor Recto and both went their separate
Crestito and Linda Rance at the bodega. He went to Barangay Captain Orbe ways. On the other hand, both Barangay Kagawad Antonio Macalipay and
and inquired why they were there. Barangay Captain Orbe told him that the Emiliano Renato Santos died due to multiple wounds inflicted on them by
padlock of the bodega was destroyed and the palay, stolen. Orbe requested herein appellant.
Melchor Recto to stay as he might be needed.
Thereafter, five informations were filed against the appellant charging him of
While SPO4 Rafol and SPO1 Male were leaving the premises, the group of different crimes.
Appellant Julio Recto, Cornelio Regis, Jr., Dante Regis, Melvar Relox,
Teodoro de la Serna, Enrica Regis and Nida Regis arrived. The group stopped Julio Recto interposed self-defense and defense of his co-accused Cornelio
at the first trampa near the bodega. Barangay Captain Orbe advised them not Regis, Jr. According to co-accused Julio Recto they were berated at the
to create trouble, but, Dante Regis pulled a piece of wood and threw it towards bodega, and it was there that the late Emiliano Santos shot co-accused
them. Thereafter, Appellant Recto, while holding a balisong or fan knife, Cornelio Regis, Jr. and he was hit and he (Julio) retreated two (2) steps
approached Barangay Captain Orbe. The latter responded by telling the backward. Julio Recto was able to take possession of a gun from Wilfredo
former to surrender the balisong. Appellant stepped backward, opened his Arce, took cover behind a post and still managed to shoot Santos who was
jacket and pulled out a gun. Upon seeing the gun, Barangay Captain Orbe somewhere else. He threw the gun later on the disputed land and ran to the
retreated, while Barangay Kagawad Antonio Macalipay stepped forward with direction of the banana plantation of Regis, Jr. and he reached his house.
both arms raised and uttered the words: Do not do it. Well just settle this. Julio
Recto, however, immediately pulled the trigger, hitting Barangay Kagawad RTC Romblon found Julio Recto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (1) two
Macalipay, causing him to fall down on the ground. Then Cornelio Regis, Jr. counts of the complex crime of qualified direct assault with frustrated homicide
approached the fallen Macalipay and flipped his bolo at the latter who rolled (Criminal Case Nos. 1970 and 1971), (2) the complex crime of qualified direct
and fell into the rice paddy. assault with murder (Criminal Case No. 1972), and (3) homicide (Criminal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case No. 1973). As consequence thereof, the penalty of death is imposed. of the performance of his duty. At the time, he was attempting to pacify
The cases are forwarded before the SC for automatic review. appellant and to keep the peace between the two groups. Evidently, appellant
had not yet been able to perform all the acts of execution necessary to bring
Issues: about the death of Orbe, because the latter was able to run away after being
1. Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of direct assault with fired at. Although appellant had already directly commenced the commission
frustrated murder against Melchor Recto (Crim Case No 1970) of a felony by overt acts (shooting Orbe with a de sabog), he was not able to
2. Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of direct assault with consummate that felony for some reason other than his spontaneous
frustrated murder against Percival Orbe (Crime Case No. 1971) desistance. Thus, he committed attempted homicide.
3. Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of direct assault with
Given these circumstances, appellant should be convicted of the complex
murder against Antonio Macalipay (Crim Case No 1972)
crime of direct assault with attempted homicide
Held: 3. NO. Accused is guilty of direct assault with homicide. Considering that
Antonio Macalipay was a kagawad who was in the actual performance of his
1. NO. Accused is guilty of attempted homicide. An agent of a person in
duties when he was shot, the attack on him constituted direct assault.
authority is any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by
appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of However, accused-appellant should only be held liable for the crime of direct
public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio assault with homicide because of the absence of treachery in the process of
councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person who killing Antonio Macalipay. If the decision to kill was sudden, there is no
comes to the aid of persons in authority. In the case at bar, the victim, Melchor treachery, even if the position of the victim was vulnerable, because it was not
Recto -- being then the barangay chief tanod of Ambulong, Magdiwang, deliberately sought by the accused, but was purely accidental.
Romblon -- was clearly an agent of a person in authority. However, contrary
to the findings of the trial court, he was not engaged in the performance of his
official duties at the time he was shot. Neither was he attacked on the
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY
occasion of such performance. Melchor explained that when appellants group
OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH PERSON
arrived, it was Barangay Captain Percival Orbe and Kagawad Antonio
(Art. 151, RPC)
Macalipay who talked to the group. Melchor did not do anything to avert the
tension. He only watched what was transpiring and later hid himself when the
CASE 28: JORGE VYTIACO vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Tan)
first shot was fired.
G.R. Nos. L-20246-48, April 24, 1967
However, for reasons other than his own desistance, appellant was not able En banc
to perform all the acts of execution necessary to consummate the killing, since
the wounds he inflicted were not mortal. Further, there is no treachery to Doctrine: Before a person can be held guilty of the crime of Resistance or
qualify as murder in the attempt of killing Melchor Recto since the decision to Disobedience to a person in authority or the agent of such person, it must be
kill the latter was spontaneous. shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the person he
disobeyed or resisted is a person in authority or the agent of such person who
Thus, the crime committed against him is attempted homicide is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties.
2. NO. Accused is guilty of direct assault with attempted homicide. On the
Facts:
other hand, when, Brgy Captain Percival Orbe was attacked on the occasion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecution – At about noon of March 12, 1959, in the private market of greeting Jagmis who was his friend, told him to cool off as the weather was
Manuel Zambales in Panacan, Aborlan, Rosalino Jagmis was informed by his already hot. Jagmis resented the remark and collared appellant. Surprised by
brother-in-law, Zambales, that the previous day a certain Eduardo created Jagmis' reaction, appellant tried to free himself and protested that he had done
trouble in the market, overturning the tables. Jagmis got mad and started Jagmis no wrong and that they were friends. A companion of appellant and
talking in a loud voice. Appellant Jorge Vytiaco, who was passing by, heard another man, who turned out to be Gapilango, intervened and Jagmis
Jagmis. Appellant told him to calm down. Jagmis did not take the remark released appellant. When appellant asked Jagmis why he collared him, he
good-naturedly. He told appellant to mind his own business. An exchange of (appellant) having merely intended his remark as a greeting to a friend, Jagmis
unfriendly words followed and the two in no time grabbed each other. Esteban again grabbed him and said that appellant was a rich man and had no
Gapilango, a PC enlisted man who was in plain clothes and on patrol duty, business interfering. Jagmis' brother-in-law, Zambales, intervened and
saw the two adversaries and separated them. Appellant ran away but told separated the two. Already peeved and embarrassed, appellant prepared to
Jagmis to wait and he would get his gun. On the way, appellant met his defend himself if Jagmis would charge again. But as appellant happened to
brother-in-law, Ramon Ramos, carrying a .22 caliber rifle and a .38 caliber look towards the road, he saw his brother-in-law carrying a rifle and a pistol.
pistol. Someone apparently had relayed the tiff to appellant's house. When So he ran out and shouted at him to go home. He was followed by Gapilango
Gapilango saw Ramos handing the pistol to appellant, he approached to and Jagmis. Jagmis told Gapilango to get the guns. Gapilango drew his pistol
demand the surrender of the firearms. He, however, failed to get the weapons and demanded the surrender of the firearms. Appellant sensing Gapilango to
because Ramos ran away with the rifle and appellant held him by the waist be close behind suddenly wheeled around and seeing the latter's gun aimed
and tried to snatch his service pistol in his back pocket. He tried to prevent at him, grabbed it. In the ensuing struggle for its possession, it fired. Finally,
appellant from gaining possession of the pistol and while they were grappling, appellant was able to wrest it from Gapilango and with his own revolver which
it went off. Gapilango lost his balance and appellant succeeded in wresting he got from his brother-in-law, appellant pointed them at Gapilango and
the gun from him. With a revolver in each hand, his own and that of Gapilango, Jagmis and warned them, while retreating, not to go near him or he would
appellant ordered the former and Jagmis, who followed Gapilango, to raise shoot. Mrs. Zambales at this stage approached appellant and they went home
their hands and not to advance or he would shoot them. Gapilango did as together. A little later after he had hidden the guns and while he was standing
ordered but asked appellant to return to him his pistol, identifying himself as a outside his house, Gapilango and Sgt. Buñag came. Sgt. Buñag, without
PC soldier. Appellant refused to give the gun back and did not recognize asking any question, collared him and hereby demanded for Gapilango's
Gapilango's authority. So Gapilango sent somebody to call the PC revolver. Gapilango also held him by the shirt. Appellant asked Sgt. Buñag
detachment commander, Sgt. Pelucio Buñag. Sgt. Buñag came and asked that they clear matters first. When he was released, appellant went inside his
appellant for Gapilango's pistol and promised that he would try to amicably house and told the soldiers to come inside if they wanted to get the pistol. But
settle the case. Appellant, who was standing outside his house, again declined the soldiers left instead. Appellant then delivered Gapilango's revolver to the
to yield the gun and instead went inside and told the soldiers to get it if they vice mayor.
wanted it. Later in the afternoon, Capt. Pastor Escano, PC assistant provincial
commander to whom Sgt. Buñag reported the incident, went to appellant's Charges
house and talked to him. The revolver was returned to Capt. Escano by the - Grave Threats against Jagmis
vice mayor of Aborlan to whom appellant surrendered it earlier. - Direct Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority (Gapilangco)
- Serious Disobedience to an Agent of a Person in Authority (Gapilangco)
Defense – On the day in question, appellant went to Zambales' market to see
a Mr. Murillo to have him sign some papers. While conversing with Murillo, Trial Court – Guilty as charged
appellant heard Jagmis angrily talking aloud. Appellant, in a manner of CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Acquitted Vytiaco of Grave Threats and Serious Disobedience would be attacked again. Thus, it is not far-fetched, as we have observed
- As to the Direct Assault, CA held him liable for Resistance and Serious above, that the purpose of the appellant in pointing the gun at Jagmis was to
Disobedience instead and not of the former crime. The reason is because he protect himself from what he thought was an impending aggression. This is
did not return the gun of Gapilango after Gapilango had identified himself as evident from appellant's warning to Jagmis not to come near him while at the
a constabulary soldier. The evidence does not show whether or not, after same time retreating. The essence of threat is intimidation. Appellant's act, in
knowing Gapilango's identity, appellant continued to point the gun at him. this, particular case, cannot be considered an act of intimidation."
There is no question, however, that he thereafter went home. Under the
circumstance, it cannot be said with certainty that there was on the part of It is urged by the petitioner that there is no positive finding by the Court of
appellant a palpable intent or determination to defy a law officer and therefore Appeals that in failing to obey Gapilango's demand for the return of his gun
his failure to heed Gapilango's order to return the revolver constitutes merely petitioner intended to resist or seriously disobey said Gapilango in his capacity
resistance and serious disobedience. as an agent of a person in authority engaged in the performance of his official
duties. The petitioner maintains that the particular act for which the petitioner
Issue: WON Vytiaco is guilty of Resistance and Serious Disobedience to an was held guilty by the Court of Appeals — that is, his failure to return the gun
Agent of a Person in Authority (Gapilangco). — was but one of a series of acts done in self-defense and/or under a mistake
of fact, one act following the other closely in point of time, all arising from the
Ruling: NO. The decision of the Court of Appeals under review is hereby same incident and each one performed under the same impulse. The
reversed, and the petitioner is thereby acquitted of the crime of Resistance petitioner points out that Gapilango's demand for the return of the gun and
and Serious Disobedience of which he was found guilty by the Court of petitioner's refusal to deliver the same happened immediately after the
Appeals. struggle for the gun and the warning made by petitioner to Gapilango and
Jagmis not to advance any farther or he would shoot, and that was at a time
We find merit in the contention of petitioner. We gather, from a reading of the when petitioner was understandably under the apprehension that his pursuers
decision of the Court of Appeals, that the petitioner was acquitted of the were still after him.
charge of grave threats against the person of Rosalino Jagmis upon the
ground that when he pointed a gun at Jagmis his act did not constitute an We find merit in the stand of the petitioner. Let it be noted that, as the Court
intimidation, which is an essential element in the crime of grave threats. It was of Appeals itself had found, the petitioner did not know that Gapilango was a
simply an act of self-defense to prevent Jagmis and Esteban Gapilango from constabulary soldier at the time when he grabbed Gapilango's gun and at the
getting nearer to him while he (petitioner) was at the same time retreating. The time when he started pointing the guns at both Gapilango and Jagmis. The
Court of Appeals said: "Appellant was able to wrest Gapilango's pistol. While Court of Appeals had found this act of petitioner in pointing the guns at both
retreating, he warned Gapilango, together with Jagmis, not to advance or he Gapilango and Jagmis as an act of self-protection. As the petitioner was
would shoot. At this particular moment when appellant could understandably pointing the guns at Gapilango and Jagmis, he was retreating and at the same
be under the apprehension that his pursuers, one of whom he still did not know time warning them not to approach. Under that circumstance we consider that
to be a constabulary soldier, were still after him, his act of pointing the guns the refusal of the petitioner to return the gun to Gapilango was but one of the
at them with warning not to come forward is not properly an act of series of acts on his part to protect himself. Under that circumstance, it
intimidation but rather of self-protection; appellant thereby hoped to cannot reasonably be said that he meant to defy, or resist, or disobey an
discourage them from committing any rush action or violence against agent of a person in authority who was in the performance of his official
his person." The Court of Appeals further said: "Appellant, who had just been duties. What assurance had the petitioner at that precise moment,
subjected to unwarranted violence by Jagmis, on his part, thought that he immediately after he had a struggle with Gapilango for the possession of the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
latter's gun and while he was pointing that gun to Gapilango and Jagmis, that to resist and disobey a peace officer who was in the performance of his
Gapilango was really a peace officer? The evidence shows that Gapilango official duty. That doubt must be resolved in favor of the petitioner.
was in civilian clothes, he did not exhibit any badge — he simply Consequently, we hold that the Court of Appeals erred when in case CA-G.R.
identified himself verbally after the petitioner had wrested his gun from No. 00528-R, it found the petitioner guilty of the crime of resistance and
him. The refusal of petitioner to return Gapilango's gun was but a serious disobedience as defined in Article 161 (now Art. 151) of the Revised
continuation of his efforts to defend himself from whatever harm that Penal Code.
could come from both Jagmis and Gapilango. Under the circumstances,
the petitioner had reason to believe that once he had returned the gun to
Gapilango, Gapilango would use that gun against him. His refusal to return
the gun was what any reasonable person would have done under the situation QUASI-RECIDIVISM
that the petitioner found himself. (Art. 160, RPC)
We agree with the petitioner that in the decision of the Court of Appeals, there CASE 29: PEOPLE vs. BALDOGO (Pedrozo)
is no positive finding that the petitioner intended to resist or seriously disobey G.R. No. 129106-07 January 24, 2003
an agent of a person in authority while engaged in the performance of official Doctrine: The excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant showing that
duties. Likewise, there is no positive finding that when the petitioner refused he was convicted record is not the best evidence under Section 3, Rule 130
to return Gapilango's gun he believed that Gapilango was a constabulary of the Revised Rules of Court, to prove the judgment of the trial court and to
soldier, and that the petitioner knew that Gapilango was at the time performing prove that said judgment had become final and executory.
his official duties as a peace officer. We accept the hypothesis offered by
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had reason to suspect that Facts: Julio Camacho, Sr. and his wife, Heather Esteban, had four children,
Gapilango was helping Jagmis, because right at the start of the incident namely: Julio, Jr., Jorge, Julie, and Jasper. Julio Sr. was employed as a
between Jagmis and the petitioner at the store of Ramon Zambales, security guard in the Iwahig Prison and Penal Colony. He and his family lived
Gapilango did not identify himself as a peace officer and both of them pursued in a compound inside the sub-colony. Edgardo Bermas alias Bunso, an inmate
the petitioner from the store. of the penal colony, was assigned as a domestic helper of the Camacho
spouses. Accused-appellant Baldogo alias Baguio, also an inmate of the
Before a person can be held guilty of the crime of resistance or colony, was assigned in January 1996 as a domestic helper of the Camacho
disobedience to a person in authority or the agent of such person, it family. Both helpers resided in a hut located about ten meters away from the
must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the house of the Camacho family.
person he disobeyed or resisted is a person in authority or the agent of
such person who is actually engaged in the performance of his official One evening, at about 7:30 p.m., Julio Sr. left the house to attend a bible study
duties. What is punished as an act of resistance or serious disobedience at the dormitory in the Agronomy Section of the Penal Farm. Heather and her
under the Revised Penal Code is not the resistance or disobedience against son, Jasper, were in Aborlan town. Only Jorge and his sister Julie were left in
a person in authority or an agent of such person in his capacity as a private the house. While Julio Sr. was away, the two accused killed Jorge and
individual but in his official capacity as an authority under the law, or as kidnapped Julie whom they took to the mountains and detained her for more
agent of the law, while engaged in the performance of his official duties. than five days.
The facts as narrated in the decision of the Court of Appeals engender in the
mind a serious doubt as to whether or not the petitioner had the intention
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon arraignment, the accused Baldogo pleaded not guilty. Bermas on the appreciated in this case. The barefaced fact that accused-
other hand died before he could be arraigned. appellant was detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that
The Verdict of the Trial Court final judgment for homicide has been rendered against him. There
A. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12900 finding the accused Gonzalo being no modifying circumstances in the commission of the crime,
Baldogo, alias Baguio, guilty as principal of the crime of murder accused-appellant should be meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the Revised penal Code.
B. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12903 finding the accused GONZALO
BALDOGO, alias, Baguio, guilty as principal of the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention as defined and penalized 2. YES. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of two separate crimes
in Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section and not the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or homicide
8 of Republic Act No. 7659 under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act 7659. The trial court is correct. There is no
The case as against co-accused Edgar Bermas is ordered evidence that Jorge was kidnapped or detained first by accused-
dismissed by reason of extinction of criminal liability occasioned by his
appellant and Bermas before he was killed. The last paragraph of Article
death pending conclusion of the proceedings as against him.
267 of the Code is applicable only if kidnapping or serious illegal detention is
The trial court imposed on accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death in committed and the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the kidnapping
Criminal Case No. 12900 and reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. 12903. or serious illegal detention.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Regional Trial
Issue: Court is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION: Both penalties should
1. WON the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism should be be reclusion perpetua.
appreciated
2. WON the trial court was correct in convicting the accused of separate
crimes ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK
NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
Ruling: (Art. 168, RPC)
1. NO. The prosecution adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison
record of accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of Homicide by CASE 30: TECSON vs. CA (Vergara)
the RTC of Baguio City with a penalty which he was serving at the Iwahig G.R. No. 113218. November 22, 2001
Penal Colony. The excerpt of the prison record is not the best evidence DE LEON, JR., J.:
under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, to prove the
judgment of the RTC Baguio City and to prove that said judgment had Doctrine: Possession of fake dollar notes must be coupled with the act
become final and executory. of using or at least with intent to use the same as shown by a clear
and deliberate overt act in order to constitute a crime.
Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence
which is inadmissible, absent proof that the original of the Facts: A civilian informer personally informed the Cash Department of
judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot the Central Bank of the Philippines that a certain Mang Andy was
be produced without the fault of the prosecution. Therefore the involved in a syndicate engaging in the business of counterfeit US dollar
aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism cannot be notes. On April 26, 1990 a test-buy operation was ordered by Atty. Pio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chan, Jr., Chief of the Investigation Staff of the Central Bank, which
resulted in the purchase from Mang Andy of one (1) US dollar note for Mere possession coupled with intent to use the counterfeit US dollar
Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00) that was found to be counterfeit by the notes is sufficient to constitute the crime under Article 168 of the
Currency Analysis and Redemption Division of the Central Bank. Revised Penal Code; The accused’s natural reaction to the seeming
Consequently, Atty. Chan formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation interest of the poseur buyers to buy fake US dollar notes constitutes
composed of prosecution witnesses. At about 11:30 o’clock in the an overt act which clearly showed his intention to use or sell the
morning, the team proceeded to the Jollibee restaurant in Rizal Ave., counterfeit US dollar notes; The instant case involves a case of
Sta. Cruz, Manila. Three (3) members of the team namely: William entrapment, which is allowed, and not instigation.
Pasive, Carlos Toralde, Jr., and Warren Castillo positioned themselves
outside the Jollibee restaurant while Pedro Labita and Johnny Marqueta *Note: When the arrest of the petitioner was made, Labita did not have
proceeded inside. Subsequently, the civilian informer arrived inside the to rely on the prearranged signal of the informer inasmuch as he
restaurant and approached a man who was seated two (2) tables away (Labita) had unhindered view and appreciation of what was then taking
from where Labita and Marqueta were positioned. The informer introduced place right before his eyes. Hence, the ten (10) counterfeit US $100
to Mang Andy the said Pedro Labita and Johnny Marqueta as the dollar notes are admissible in evidence for the reason that the
persons interested in buying US dollar notes. Apparently convinced, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto by the prosecution witnesses
man drew ten (10) pieces of US $100 dollar notes from his wallet. At during the said buy-bust operation. In other words, this is a case of a
that moment, and upon a pre-arranged signal from the informer, Labita legally valid warrantless arrest and seizure of the evidence of the
and Marqueta introduced themselves as Central Bank operatives and crime.
apprehended the man called Mang Andy whom they later identified as
the herein petitioner Alejandro Tecson. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE; OR NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty under Article 168? (Art. 171, RPC)
Ruling: YES. The elements of the crime charged for violation of Article CASE 31: BATULANON v. PEOPLE (Busine)
168 of the Revised Penal Code, are: G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006
1. that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation First Division
and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to
order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged Doctrine: Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through
or falsified by another person; falsification of commercial document, appellant could be convicted of
2. that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the
forged or falsified; and allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and
3. that he either used or possessed with intent to use any of such not the technical name given in the preamble of the information.
forged or falsified instruments. Hence, possession of fake dollar
notes must be coupled with the act of using or at least with Facts: Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI)
intent to use the same as shown by a clear and deliberate employed Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager from May 1980 up to December
overt act in order to constitute a crime, as was sufficiently 22, 1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans
proven in the case at bar. to the member of the cooperative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cooperative. When she was Cashier/Manager of PCCI from 1980 to 1982, the
During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities concerning cooperative did not have by-laws yet.
the release of loans were discovered.
The trial court rendered a Decision convicting Batulano of estafa thru
Thereafter, four informations for estafa thru falsification of commercial falsification of commercial documents and is sentenced in each of the four
documents were filed against Batulanon. cases to 4 months of ARRESTO MAYOR to 1 year and 2 months of PRISION
CORRECTIONAL, to indemnify the PCCI in the total sum of P16,660.00 with
Batulanon pleaded not guilty to the charges, afterwhich a joint trial on the legal interest from the institution of the complaints until fully paid, plus costs.
merits ensued.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court.
The prosecution presented Medallo, Gopio, Jr. and Jayoma as witnesses. Appellant LEONILA BATULANON is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Medallo, the posting clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the Falsification of Private Documents under Par. 2, Article 172 of the Revised
preparation of cash vouchers testified that Batulanon forged the signatures of Penal Code; and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo. Gopio, Jr. stated that Oracion is Batulanon’ six (6) months of arresto mayormaximum, AS MINIMUM, to four (4) years and
sister-in-law and Dennis Batulanon is her son who was only 3 years old in two (2) months of prision correccional medium, AS MAXIMUM; to pay a fine
1982. He averred that membership in the cooperative is not open to minors. of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos; and to indemnify the Polomolok
Cooperative Credit , Inc. the sum of thirteen thousand one hundred sixty
Batulanon denied all the charges against her. She claimed that she did not (P13,160.00), plus legal interests from the filing of the complaints until fully
sign the vouchers in the names of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo; that the paid, plus costs.
same were signed by the loan applicants in her presence at the PCCI office
after she personally released the money to them; that the three were members The motion for reconsideration was denied. Petition assailing the decision of
of the cooperative as shown by their individual deposits and the ledger; that the CA was filed to the SC.
the board of directors passed a resolution in August 1982 authorizing her to
certify to the correctness of the entries in the vouchers; that it has become an Issue: Whether or not Batulanon can be held liable for Falsification of
accepted practice in the cooperative for her to release loans and dispense Private Documents under Par. 2, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code
with the approval of Gopio Jr., in case of his absence; that she signed the loan even if the charge in the information was estafa through falsification of
application and voucher of her son Dennis Batulanon because he was a minor commercial document.
but she clarified that she asked Gopio, Jr., to add his signature on the
documents to avoid suspicion of irregularity; that contrary to the testimony of Ruling: YES. Although the offense charged in the information is estafa
Gopio, Jr., minors are eligible for membership in the cooperative provided they through falsification of commercial document, appellant could be convicted
are children of regular members. of falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the
allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and
Batulanon admitted that she took out a loan in her son's name because she not the technical name given in the preamble of the information.
is no longer qualified for another loan as she still has to pay off an existing
loan; that she had started paying off her son's loan but the cooperative refused The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172, paragraph
to accept her payments after the cases were filed in court. She also declared 2 of the Revised Penal Code are:
that one automatically becomes a member when he deposits money with the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: “by: Ibatulanon” to indicate that
those in paragraph 7, Article 171; she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said act does not
(2) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and fall under any of the modes of Falsification under Article 171 because there is
(3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the nothing untruthful about the fact that she used the name of Dennis and that
falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage. as representative of the latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan from PCCI.
The essence of falsification is the act of making untruthful or false statements,
The act of Batulanon of falsification falls under paragraph 2 of Article 171, i.e., which is not attendant in this case. As to whether, such representation
causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI is a different matter which will
when they did not in fact so participate. This is because by signing the name make her liable for estafa, but not for falsification. Hence, it was an error for
of Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos. 30A, 237A, and 267A, the courts below to hold that Batulanon is also guilty of Falsification of Private
respectively, as payee of the amounts appearing in the corresponding cash Document with respect to the case involving the cash voucher of Dennis
vouchers, Batulanon made it appear that they obtained a loan and received Batulanon.
its proceeds when they did not in fact secure said loan nor receive the
amounts reflected in the cash vouchers. In the instant case, there is no doubt that as Cashier/Manager, Batulanon
holds the money for administration and in trust for PCCI. Knowing that she is
The CA correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and no longer qualified to obtain a loan, she fraudulently used the name of her son
not commercial documents because they are not documents used by who is likewise disqualified to secure a loan from PCCI. Her misappropriation
merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions of the amount she obtained from the loan is also not disputed as she even
nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other admitted receiving the same for personal use. Although the amount received
commercial law. Rather, they are private documents, which have been defined by Batulanon is reflected in the records as part of the receivables of PCCI,
as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention damage was still caused to the latter because the sum misappropriated by her
of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some could have been loaned by PCCI to qualified members, or used in other
disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. productive undertakings. At any rate, the disturbance in property rights caused
by Batulaono's misappropriation is in itself sufficient to constitute injury within
As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private the meaning of Article 315.
document, it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged
with falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a CASE 32: PEDRO BERMEJO v. BARRIOS (Cerda)
private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime G.R. No. L-23614 and L23615, February 27, 1970
to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the
necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa. Doctrine: Petition for Habeas Corpus is a document contemplated in Article
171-172, RPC.
The Court finds that the Court of Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documentss in the cases Facts: There are two interrelated cases here.
of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo.
G.R. No. L-23614
However, in the case involving her son, the crime committed by Batulanon is Petitioner Pedro M. Bermejo and Julia "Doe" (her identity at the time was
estafa and not falsification. Records show that Batulanon did not falsify the unknown) were charged in the city court of Roxas City, on August 22, 1963,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the crime of falsification of public or official document. They allegedly appearing in the petition for habeas corpus was the true thumbmark
prepared and executed a document consisting of an amended petition for of accused Carmorin
habeas corpus entitled "Pedro M. Bermejo and Jovita Carmorin, petitioners, City Judge Barrios issued an order denying the motion to quash and
vs. Jose M. Bernales and Wilfredo Bernales, respondents", which petition motion for reconsideration.
Pedro M. Bermejo signed while Julia "Doe" placed her thumbmark over the
name "Jovita Carmorin". The two accused stated and made it appear in the Both Bermejo and Jovita filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
amended petition that the same was signed and sworn to by Jovita Carmorin preliminary injunction with the Court of First Instance of Capiz, also
as one of the petitioners when in truth and in fact the said Jovita Carmorin naming as respondents City Judge Barrios and City Fiscal Abela.
never signed and swore to it, because it was in fact the accused Julia "Doe" CFI decision on the petition for certiorari
who signed and swore to that petition as Julia Carmorin. The Court of First Instance of Capiz issued an order, on January 6, 1964,
Bermejo’s contention declaring that it had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the two special civil
- the amended petition for habeas corpus (in Special Proceeding No. actions for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, and the
V-2669 of the Court of First Instance of Capiz), allegedly falsified, is court set the hearing of the two cases for January 24, 1964.
not a document contemplated under the provisions of Article 172 of - It dismissed the two petitions.
the Revised Penal Code
- that in a previous judgment of the Court of First Instance of Capiz in Issue: Whether the petition for habeas corpus allegedly falsified is a public
the habeas corpus proceedings it was declared that the thumbmark document
in the amended peti tion was that of Jovita Carmorin
Respondent City Judge denied the motion to quash and the subsequent Ruling: Considering that the petition for habeas corpus (Special Proceedings
motion for reconsideration. No. V-2669) alleged the illegal confinement, or deprivation of liberty, of one
Soterania Carmorin, and that said petition was duly subscribed and sworn to
G.R. No, L-23615 before Clerk of Court Leopoldo B. Dorado and filed with the Court of First
Jovita Carmorin was charged by respondent City Fiscal Quirico Abela with Instance of Capiz, forming, therefore, a part of the court records in said
perjury, on August 23, 1963, in the same city court of Roxas City for allegedly proceedings, it cannot be disputed that said petition is a public or official
having "subscribed and swore to an affidavit . . . . that she was really the one document as contemplated in Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal
who signed with her thumbmark as Jovita Carmorin . . . . the amended petition Code.
for habeas corpus . . . . when in truth and in fact, as she very well knew, she What is a document?
had not done such act of signing with her thumbmark said petition and it was - U. S. v. Orera, a "document" is defined as a deed, instrument or other
another person, who signed with a thumbmark said petition as Jovita duly authorized paper by which something is proved, evidenced or
Carmorin. . . ." After posting a bond, said accused, thru her counsel, Atty. set forth.
Pedro M. Bermejo (the same person accused in the fal sification case), filed - U. S. v. Asensi, this Court held that any instrument authorized by a
a motion to quash the information. notary public or a competent public official, with the solemnities
Jovita’s. Contention required by law, is a public document.
- no offense was commit ted by the accused because it had already What are public documents?
been declared by the Court of First Instance of Capiz in the habeas Section 38, Rule 123 of the old Rules of Court, enumerates the following as
corpus case (Special Proceedings No. V-2669) that the thumbmark public writings:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"(a) The written acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official whose signatures were required before payments of salaries could be legally
bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, made, but it appears that notwithstanding this fact the municipal treasurer had
whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; already paid the salary of the municipal secretary when the roll was presented
to the president for approval.
"(b) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private writings."
The same principle also obtains in the United States, that "defendant's According to the prosecution, the president, upon being handed the roll,
pleadings and papers, which were involved in civil actions and which were in became angry because it was accompanied by a memorandum requiring him
custody of county clerk as ex-oficio clerk of superior court in which action was to reimburse the municipality for the sum of P33 alleged to have been
pending, were 'public documents' and were within scope of subject matter of overdrawn by him by way of per diem allowances, and that he therefore tore
statute making alteration of court records an offense. the roll into pieces.
Therefore, Bermejo cannot say that he committed no crime if it can be shown The defendant denies that any demand was made upon him for a
that, as charged in the information, that he connived or conspired with a reimbursement or that he, for that reason, destroyed the pay roll.
certain Julia "Doe" in falsifying said petition by making it appear that Jovita
Carmorin placed her thumbmark therein when in fact she did not do so. The witnesses for the defense, among them the clerk who prepared the pay
roll and brought it to the president for approval, testify that the president, upon
As to the contention that there was already a judgement in a Special ascertaining that the municipal secretary had already been paid, manifested
Proceeding case declaring that it was indeed the thumbmark of Jovita: his displeasure therewith and told the municipal secretary that he would not
The Court ruled that the record of the habeas corpus proceeding is not before approve the roll; that the secretary, who appeared to be intoxicated, then
them, and they have no means of knowing what actually transpired in that became incensed the attempted to take the pay roll away from the president,
proceeding. The proper determination of such question will involve not only and that in the ensuing struggle the pay roll was torn.
the introduction and consideration of evidence, but also calls for a detailed
inquiry on the principle of estoppel by, or conclusiveness of, judgment. Due to the destruction of the payroll, Camcacho, as municipal president, was
charged with the crime of unfaithfulness in the custody of public
The case was remanded to the City Court of Roxas City for trial on the merits. documents.
CASE 33. PEOPLE vs. EUSEBIO C. CAMACHO (Chua) The Court found that there was considerable ill-feeling between the president
G.R. No. L-18688 , February 10, 1923 and the secretary due to political rivalry and that the treasurer also was hostile
OSTRAND, J. EN BANC to the president. In view of the fact that no deduction was made upon the pay
roll for the P33 alleged to have been overdrawn by the president, the reason
Doctrine: A mere blank form for an official document is not in itself a public given by the prosecution for the destruction of the pay roll does not appear
document within the meaning of article 360 of the Penal Code.   very probable and considering the enmity existing between the parties it
Facts: The municipal treasurer of the Province of Pangasinan, sent by means seems more likely that the president, finding that the salary of the secretary
of a messenger to Eusebio C. Camacho, as municipal president, for his had been paid without his approval, felt that he and his office had been
examination, certification and signature, the municipal pay roll for the payment slighted by the treasurer and that, losing control of his temper, he, and not the
of the salaries due the municipal functionaries and employees for the month municipal secretary, was principal responsible for the damage to the roll.
of June, 1920. The roll was not signed or certified to by any of the officials
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan sentenced him to suffer one year, the Philippine Islands in accordance with Act No. 90 of the Philippine
eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, with the Islands, are public documents.
corresponding accessory penalties prescribed by law, to pay a fine of 325
pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and with To hold that a mere blank in itself alone is a public document would lead
disqualification for public office for the term of eleven years and one day. to the absurdity that a person might be criminally prosecuted under
article 360 of the Penal Code for the destruction of a printed blank form
Issues: containing no other writing whatever.
Whether or not the unsigned payroll is a public document- NO; and
Whether or not defendant municipal president can be held liable for the crime 2. No. The alleged public document, with the destruction of which the
of unfaithfulness in the custody of public documents upon destruction of the defendant is charged, is in the evidence before us. It consist of a printed
payroll-NO blank form called "Municipal Pay Roll" filed in with the names of the
municipal officials and employees to whom salaries were due, together
Ruling: with their designations and the amounts due them. At the foot of each
1. No. A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven page there is a blank space for its approval by the municipal president
and affirmed. The writing here in question proves nothing and confirms and in addition thereto the following form for a certificate appears:
nothing; it is not a document but merely a draft of one. Until approved or
certified to by one or more of the proper officials, it would not be entitled
I hereby certify on my official oath that the above Pay Roll is correct and that the services have
to filing in any public office or archive and might be disapproved or even
duly rendered as stated.
destroyed by the official whose approval was necessary to give it effect,
without giving rise to criminal liability on his part. ............................................................................................. (as to office of President an
(Municipal President) police force).
In the absence of the approval of the president, the payment of that
salary was contrary to law (Administrative Code, sec. 2300), and being ............................................................................................. (as to office of Secretary).
thus completely unauthorized, neither the payment nor the receipt (Municipal Secretary)
therefor, nor the signature signifying such receipt can be considered or
official character. ............................................................................................. (as to office of Treasurer).
(Municipal Treasurer)
The Attorney-General, in his brief, cites the case of United States vs.
Asensi, as authority for the contention that the writing in question is a ............................................................................................. (as to office of ..................
public document. It is true that in a dictum in the decision in that case the
court, citing United States vs. Carrington, said "We have also held that
the blank forms prepared by the Auditor of the Philippine Islands, in Neither the certificate nor space for the approval of the roll have been signed.
accordance with Act No. 90 of the Philippine Commission, are public The only signature on the roll is that of "A. Garcia" appearing by way of receipt
documents." An examination of the Carrington case shows that what the for the salary of the municipal secretary. In that incomplete state of the pay
court there held, and what it evidently meant to say in the Asensi case, roll, the signature "A. Garcia" had no legitimate place thereon and for the
was that documents executed on blank forms prepared by the Auditor of purpose of determining the character of the instrument may be entirely
disregarded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dorsal portion thereof, his forged signature and another which he found to be
Counsel for the defendant argues that there in the present case was no that of Aristela Adaza (Aristela), wife of petitioner.
deduction of the alleged document in so far as it, with slight repairs, might
have been made serviceable. There is some force in this contention, but, in According to Pearanda, the petitioner offered to take the disbursement
view of our conclusions as to the character of the writing, the point need not voucher and have it signed by Mejorada, hence, she handed it to petitioner
be discussed. but kept the check in her custody; and when petitioner returned the voucher
to Pearanda later that day, the check already bore a signature purporting to
CASE 34: ADAZA vs SANDIGANBAYAN (Pagdanganan) be that of Mejorada. The check was allegedly encashed by Aristela. Petitioner
G.R. No. 154886. July 28, 2005 went to his house informing him that he would be paid within the week but No
Third Division payment was made. Mejorada filed a complaint against petitioner and his wife
Aristela before NBI. The complaint, for falsification of public document, was
Doctrine: It does not suffice to merely allege in the information that the crime forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman. During the pendency of the
charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office or that he took preliminary investigation, Mejorada executed an Affidavit of Desistance
advantage of his position as these are conclusions of law. The specific factual alleging that he had been paid in full by the spouses. Thereafter, Ombudsman
allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between issued a Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner and Aristela
the discharge of the offenders official duties and the commission of the offense Petitioner was charged in two Informations filed before the Sandiganbayan. 1.
charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to For falsifying a public document, namely Disbursement Voucher
public office, are controlling. bycounterfeiting the signature Mejorada 2 for falsifying a public document in
conspiracy with Aristela, DPB Check issued by the DPWH
Facts: In 1996, (DPWH) of the 1st District of Zamboanga del Norte awarded
to the Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) of Manawan National High Sandiganbayan: found petitioner guilty in the first case, and acquitted him and
School (MNHS) in MZamboanga del Norte a contract for the construction of a his wife Aristela in the second case for insufficiency of evidence. MR was filed
school building consisting of two classrooms at an agreed consideration of by petitioner but was denied by Sandiganbayan
P111,319.50. Petitioner at that time was municipal mayor of Jose Dalman. It
was completed on June 24, 1997 but PTA failed to receive the last installment A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed before SC assailing the
payment in the amount of P20,847.17. PTA President Mejoranda upon Resolution] of the Sandiganbayan finding petitioner Ludwig H. Adaza
st
verification was informed by Pearanda Cashier II of the 1 Engineering District (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Document
of Zamboanga del Norte, that the check for P20,847.17 had been released to penalized under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, paragraph 1 of the
petitioner. Revised Penal Code.
Mejorada requested that he be furnished with certified true copies of the Defense: SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE
disbursement voucher and the corresponding check representing the last OFFENSE CHARGED OF FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
payment. Upon checking, he detected in Disbursement Voucher that the UNDER ARTICLE 172 PARAGRAPH 1 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 171
signature above his printed name thereon acknowledging receipt of the check PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE AGAINST THE ACCUSED
from Releasing Officer-Cashier Pearanda was not his. And he noticed that (FORMER) MUNICIPAL MAYOR (WITH SALARY GRADE 27) WHO DID
petitioners signature was affixed on the voucher. In DBP Check issued to NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION IN THE ALLEGED
payee PTA Pres. Mejorada he noticed that there were two signatures at the COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AS RULED BY THE SANDIGANBAYAN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUCH BEING THE CASE, THE ALLEGED OFFENSE WAS NOT charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to
COMMITTED IN RELATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR public office, are controlling.
WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN.
Although herein petitioner was described in the information as a public officer
Issue: WON Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction being then the Mayor with salary grade 27 of Jose Dalman, Zamboanga del
Norte, there was no allegation showing that the act of falsification of public
Ruling: Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction. document attributed to him was intimately connected to the duties of his office
as mayor to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
For an offense to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Neither was there any allegation to show how he made use of his position as
Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: mayor to facilitate the commission of the crimes charged. The information
(1) the offense committed is a violation of merely alleges that petitioner falsified the disbursement voucher by
(a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt counterfeiting therein the signature of Mejorada. For the purpose of
Practices Act), determining jurisdiction, it is this allegation that is controlling, not the evidence
(b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), presented by the prosecution during the trial.
(c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code (the law on bribery), The offender under Article 172 must be a private individual or maybe a public
(d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 officer, employee or notary public who does not take advantage of his official
(sequestration cases), or position.[62] Under Article 171, an essential element of the crime is that the act
(e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed of falsification must be committed by a public officer, employee or notary who
with other crimes; takes advantage of his official position.
(2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a
public official or employee[42] holding any of the positions It is thus apparent that for purposes of acquisition of jurisdiction by the
enumerated in paragraph A of Section 4; and Sandiganbayan, the requirement imposed by R.A. 8249 that the offense be
(3) the offense committed is in relation to the office committed in relation to the offenders office is entirely distinct from the concept
of taking advantage of ones position as provided under Articles 171 and 172
The charge against petitioner falls under above-quoted Section 4, paragraph of the Revised Penal Code.
B of R.A. 8249. It is undisputed that at the time the alleged crime was
committed, he was the municipal mayor of Jose Dalman, a position R.A. 8249 mandates that for as long as the offenders public office is intimately
corresponding to salary grade 27 which fact was properly alleged in the connected with the offense charged or is used to facilitate the commission of
information. said offense and the same is properly alleged in the information, the
Sandiganbayan acquires jurisdiction. On the other hand, the element of taking
However, it does not suffice to merely allege in the information that the crime advantage of ones position under the Revised Penal Code becomes relevant
charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office or that he took only in the present case, not for the purpose of determining whether the
advantage of his position as these are conclusions of law. The specific factual Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, but for purposes of determining whether
allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between petitioner, if he is held to be liable at all, would be legally responsible under
the discharge of the offenders official duties and the commission of the offense Article 171 or Article 172.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Sandiganbayan is declared bereft of jurisdiction over the criminal question on relatives in government. In their 1996 SALN, both Galeos and
case filed against petitioner, the prosecution is not precluded from filing the Rivera also did not fill up the boxes indicating their answers to the same
appropriate charge against him before the proper court. query.7 Ong’s signature appears in all the foregoing documents as the person
RESOLUTION OF SANDIGANBAYAN IS NULL AND VOID. who administered the oath when Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing
documents.
CASE 35: GALEOS v. PEOPLE (Dalaguete)
GR No. 174730-37, February 9, 2011 In a letter-certification dated June 1, 1994 addressed to Ms. Benita O. Santos,
Third Division; Villarama, Jr., J. Regional Director, Civil Service Commission (CSC), Regional Office 7, Cebu
City, it was attested that:
Doctrine: In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to
have taken advantage of his official position when: This is to certify that pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 7160,
(1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991,
preparation of a document; or all restrictions/requirements relative to creation of positions,
(2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. hiring and issuance of appointments, Section 325 on the
limitations for personal services in the total/supplemental
A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding appropriation of a local government unit; salary rates;
the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a finding of fact, which abolition and creation of positions, etc.; Section 76,
interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be applied.While, a organizational structure and staffing pattern; Section 79 on
narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an nepotism; Section 80, posting of vacancy and personnel
event or occurrence. selection board; Section 81 on compensation, etc. have
been duly complied with in the issuance of this
Facts: Ong was appointed Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-Mayor of the Municipality appointment.
of Naga, Cebu on April 16, 1986. He was elected Mayor of the same
municipality in 1988 and served as such until 1998. This is to certify further that the faithful observance of these
On June 1, 1994, Ong extended permanent appointments to Galeos and restrictions/requirements was made in accordance with the
Federico T. Rivera (Rivera) for the positions of Construction and Maintenance requirements of the Civil Service Commission before the
Man and Plumber I, respectively, in the Office of the Municipal Engineer. Prior appointment was submitted for review and action.
to their permanent appointment, Galeos and Rivera were casual employees
of the municipal government. The above certification was signed by Ong and HR Officer-Designate Editha
C. Garcia.
In their individual Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for
the year 1993, Galeos answered "No" to the question: "To the best of your On October 1, 1998, the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, Cebu
knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or of filed a letter-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas
affinity to anyone working in the government?" while Rivera indicated "n/a" on against Ong (then incumbent Vice-Mayor of Naga), Galeos and Rivera for
the space for the list of the names of relatives referred to in the said query. dishonesty, nepotism, violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
The boxes for "Yes" and "No" to the said query were left in blank by Galeos in for Public Officials and Employees and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
his 1994 and 1995 SALN. Rivera in his 1995 SALN answered "No" to the and for the crime of falsification of public documents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
liable for falsification regarding the letter-certification he issued since there
On August 11, 2000, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the was no evidence adduced that it was made to support Rivera’s appointment.
recommendation of OIC-Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas that criminal
charges be filed against Ong, Galeos and Rivera for falsification of public Issue: Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime charged
documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in
connection with the Certification dated June 1, 1994 issued by Ong and the Ruling: YES. Petitioners were charged with falsification of public document
false statements in the 1993, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Rivera and the 1993, under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN of Galeos. The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows:
1. the offender makes in a public document untruthful
Both Galeos and Rivera testified that they only provided the entries in their statements in a narration of facts;
SALN but did not personally fill up the forms as these were already filled up 2. he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts
by "people in the municipal hall" when they signed them. narrated by him; and
3. the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.
The Sandiganbayan found them guilty of Art. 171.
In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be proven that the public
Galeos contends that the Sandiganbayan erred when it held that the subject officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the
documentary evidence contained untruthful statements in a narration of falsification.
facts.
In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken
Galeos argues that he did not make untruthful or false statements in his advantage of his official position when:
SALN since a "statement" requires a positive averment and thus silence or (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the
non-disclosure cannot be considered one. And even if they are considered preparation of a document; or
statements, Galeos contends that they were not made in a "narration of (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.
facts" and the least they could be considered are "conclusions of law." He
also argues that the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to support Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary
the finding that he was aware of their relationship at the time of the that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person
execution of the SALN. With the presence of good faith, Galeos avers that because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the
the fourth element of the crime – the perversion of truth in the narration of violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person – is solemnly proclaimed.
missing. He also faults the Sandiganbayan for its heavy reliance on the
uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution’s sole witness despite the fact Petitioners argue that the statements "they are not related within the fourth
that there are aspects in his testimony that do not inspire belief civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" and "that Section 79 of the Local
Government Code has been complied with in the issuance of the
On the part of Ong, he argues that he cannot be held liable for falsification appointments" are not a narration of facts but a conclusion of law, as both
for merely administering the oath in a document since it is not among the require the application of the rules on relationship under the law of
legal obligations of an officer administering the oath to certify the truthfulness succession.
and/or veracity of the contents of the document. Neither can he be made
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority Doctrine: FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT The simulation of a
regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a finding public or official document, done in such a manner as to easily lead to error
of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be as to its authenticity, constitutes the crime of falsification. It is not essential
applied. that the falsification shall have been made in a real public or official document.
A narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of Facts: Paz Ramos, wife or seamstress of Amado Corral went to the police
an event or occurrence. station in Paco and complained that Corral had ill-treated her. Corral came
after Ramos and they left the station together. When Ramos left him, taking
We have held that a certification by accused officials in the Statement of with her a trunk and a diamond ring, he simulated a warrant of arrest. The
Time Elapsed and Work Accomplished qualifies as a narration of facts as municipal president of Corregidor received a warrant by mail, sent for Ramos
contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as it and said to her: “Here is a warrant and Captain Crame wants you because
consisted not only of figures and numbers but also words were used therein there is a case against you in the hands of the fiscal.” Corral was prosecuted
giving an account of the status of the flood control project. and argued that the document was not an official document, and at the trial,
he added that it was nothing at all, not an official letter.
In this case, the required disclosure or identification of relatives "within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN involves merely a Issue: Should there be a real document for falsification to be committed?
description of such relationship; it does not call for an application of law in a
particular set of facts. Ruling: No. In his brief the Attorney-General stated that an order of arrest
which had not been duly issued by a competent authority was simulated, that
Since petitioner Galeos answered "No" to the question in his 1993 SALN if an official document was imitated. The official titles “Assistant Prosecuting
he has relatives in the government service within the fourth degree of Attorney” and “Captain of Police,” following the signatures, and the wording of
consanguinity, he made an untruthful statement therein as in fact he was the order of arrest, being in due form, were more important than the seal, the
related to Ong, who was then the municipal mayor, within the fourth degree heading, and the exactness of the signatures. It induced the belief that it was
of consanguinity, he and Ong being first cousins (their mothers are sisters). “real” to such extent that the municipal president of Corregidor hastened to
As to his 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN, Galeos left in blank the boxes for the comply with the order in question, believing it a genuine one contained in a
answer to the similar query. request which he also thought was genuine made by the said captain of police.
The prosecution having established with moral certainty the guilt of A. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting or signature or rubric
petitioners for falsification of public documents under Article 171 (4) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, the court found no legal ground to CASE 37: NORMALLAH A. PACASUM vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
reverse petitioner's’ conviction. (Dionisio)
CASE 36: UNITED STATES vs. AMADEO CORRAL (Dimayuga)

Facts: Petitioner was Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism in the
G.R. No. L-5325, March 3, 1910
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, Cotabato City, while in the
En Banc; Arellano, C.J.:
performance of her official functions, taking advantage of her official position,
she allegedly falsified her Employee Clearance submitted to the Office of the
Regional Governor of the ARMM, by imitating the signature of Laura Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pangilan, the Supply officer I of the DOT-ARMM, for the purpose of claiming Mrs. Pangilan said she did not know the name of the person who took the
her salary for the months of August and September 2000 original of the Employee Clearance, but said that the latter was a niece and
staff member of the petitioner. She said that all the signatures appearing in
In 2002, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Falsification the Employees Clearance were all genuine except for Laura’s signature.
of Public Documents, defined under paragraph 1 of Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asking that she be The next witness for the prosecution was Laura Y. Pangilan, the person whose
given the opportunity to file her counter-affidavit during a preliminary signature was allegedly imitated. Laura testified that Marie Cris Batuampar,
investigation in order that her right to due process would not be violated. an officemate and niece of petitioner Pacasum, went to her house with the
Petitioner further filed an Urgent Motion for Preliminary Investigation and/or Employees Clearance of petitioner. Batuampar requested her to sign in order
Reinvestigation with a Prayer to Recall or Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest. to clear petitioner of all property accountabilities. She refused to sign the
clearance because at that time, petitioner had not yet turned over all the office
In 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motion for preliminary properties issued to her. A few days later, she was called by her mother-in-
investigation/reinvestigation decreeing that petitioner was not deprived of the law to go to the latter’s office and inspect the Employees Clearance submitted
opportunity to be heard before the Office of the Ombudsman as she had by the representative of petitioner. She went to her mother-in-law’s office and
waived her right to be heard on preliminary investigation. Petitioner pleaded was shown the Employees Clearance of petitioner. Upon seeing the same,
not guilty to the crime charged. she denied the signature appearing on top of her name. Thereupon, Marie
Cris Batuampar, the representative of petitioner, took the Employees
Subaida Pangilan testified that one of her duties was to receive applications Clearance and left.
for clearance of Regional Secretaries of the ARMM. She explained that an
Employees Clearance was a requirement to be submitted in compliance with Laura revealed she executed a joint complaint-affidavit dated 28 August 2001
a memorandum issued by then Governor Nur Misuari, directing all officers and regarding the instant case. She issued a certification with a memorandum
employees to clear themselves of property and money accountabilities before receipt dated 23 November 1999, signed by petitioner. The certification
their salaries for August and September 2000 would be paid. Upon inspection attested she did not sign petitioner’s Employees Clearance because all the
of the Employees Clearance, she noticed that the signature of Laura Pangilan office properties issued to petitioner had not been turned over or returned to
(Laura) contained in said document was not hers. She said Laura Pangilan the Supply Officer of the DOT - ARMM. Finally, she said that as of 2 January
was her daughter-in-law, and that the latter’s signature was very familiar to 2005, her last day as Supply Officer, petitioner had not returned anything.
her. Mrs. Pangilan immediately photocopied the original Employees
Clearance with the intention of sending the same to her daughter-in-law for The last witness for the prosecution, Rebecca A. Agatep, Telegraph Operator,
the purpose of having the latter confirm if the signature on top of her name in Telegraph Office, Quezon City, testified that she had been a telegraph
the Employees Clearance was hers. There being no messenger \available, operator for nineteen years. On 31 May 2005, she was at the Telegraph Office
she instead called up Laura to come to her office to verify the signature. Laura, in Commission on Audit, Quezon City. She received two telegrams for
whose office was only a walking distance away, came and inspected the transmissions both dated 31 May 2005. One was addressed to petitioner and
clearance, and denied signing the same. After she denied that she signed the the other to Marie Cris Batuampar. Upon receiving said documents, she
clearance, and while they were conversing, the bearer of the Employees transmitted the documents through telegram. The telegram addressed to
Clearance took said document and left. petitioner was received by her relative, Manso Alonto, in her residence on 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2005, while that addressed to Ms. Batuampar was transmitted to, and The Sandiganbayan likewise did not sustain petitioner’s contention that she
received in, Cotabato City on 1 June 2005. did not stand to benefit from the falsification of her Employees Clearance. The
lower court explained that the memorandum applied to petitioner, she being
For her defense, petitioner testified that although she was aware of the an official of the ARMM. It said that the applicability of said memorandum to
memorandum issued requiring the clearance, she argues that the same did petitioner was even admitted by her when she, in compliance therewith,
not apply to her because she had no cash advances. Only those with cash instructed her staff/assistant secretary to work for her Employees Clearance
advances were required to get an Employees Clearance before they could to enable her to collect her salary for the month of August 2000. It said that
receive their salaries. Petitioner said she did not know where the original of the fact that she (allegedly) had no existing cash advances did not exempt her
her Employees Clearance was. Neither did she know if the signature of Laura from the coverage of the memorandum, because she must show she had no
Pangilan therein had been imitated or forged. She likewise said that although cash advances and the only way to do this was by obtaining a clearance.
the Employee Clearance was in her name, she did not cause Laura’s
signature to be affixed thereto. Petitioner argued that the photocopy of her Employees Clearance had no
probative value in proving its contents and was inadmissible because the
Petitioner disclosed that she was able to get her salary for the month of August original thereof was not presented by the prosecution. The Sandiganbayan
. Petitioner claims also that she has not seen the original of the subject did not agree. It said that the presentation and admission of secondary
Employees Clearance.When she first saw the photocopy of the Employees evidence, like a photocopy of her Employees Clearance, was justified to prove
Clearance, the signature of Laura was not there. She was able to see the the contents thereof, because despite reasonable notices (telegrams) made
photocopy of the Employees Clearance again after this case had been filed by the prosecution to petitioner and her assistant secretary to produce the
with the Sandiganbayan, already with the alleged signature of Laura. original of her Employees Clearance, they ignored the notice and refused to
Petitioner said it was not she who placed or caused Laura’s purported present the original of said document.
signature to be affixed there.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
SANDIGANBAYAN RULING: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of DENIED by the Sandiganbayan
falsification. The Sandiganbayan found the signature of Supply Officer Laura
Y. Pangilan appearing in the Employees Clearance of petitioner to have been Issue: Petition for Certiorari
falsified/forged. It did not give much weight on petitioner’s defense denying (1) WON petitioner needed an Employees Clearance
she was the one who actually falsified her Employees Clearance by imitating (2) WON petitioner benefited from the alleged falsification, hence must
the signature of Laura Pangilan and that she had no idea about the alleged be deemed the author thereof;
falsification, because it was her assistant secretary, Marie Cris Batuampar,
who worked for her clearance. The Sandiganbayan added that considering it Ruling:
was petitioner who took advantage of and profited from the use of the falsified
clearance, the presumption was that she was the material author of the (1) NO. Petitioner contends that under the memorandum, she was not
falsification. Despite full opportunity, she was not able to rebut said required to file an Employees Clearance to draw her salary but what was
presumption. required was a credit notice. She does not need to submit the clearance since
she had no cash advances. Hence, the signature in her Employees Clearance
was "irrelevant and a non-issue".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court agrees that what was required before she could draw her salaries Moreover, it is an established rule, that in the absence of a satisfactory
was a Credit Notice from the COA and not an Employees Clearance. The explanation, when a person has in his possession or control a falsified
memorandum states that what was required from officers/employees who had document and who makes use of the same, the presumption or inference is
unliquidated cash advances was the corresponding Credit Notice issued by justified that such person is the forger or the one who caused the forgery and,
the COA after they had settled their accounts. There was indeed no mention therefore, guilty of falsification. In line with this, and considering that it was the
of any Employees Clearance therein. Up to this point, we agree with petitioner. accused who took advantage and profited in the use of the falsified Employees
Clearance in question, the presumption is inevitable that she is the material
(2) YES. It is to be made clear that the "use" of a falsified document is author of the falsification.
separate and distinct from the "falsification" of a public document. The
act of "using" falsified documents is not necessarily included in the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Sandiganbayan in
"falsification" of a public document. Using falsified documents is Crim. Case No. 27483 dated 7 August 2007 and its resolution dated 22
punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case at bar, October 2007 are hereby AFFIRMED.
the falsification of the Employees Clearance was consummated the
moment the signature of Laura Pangilan was imitated. In the falsification CASE 38: PEOPLE v. SENDAYDIEGO (Enriquez)
of a public document, it is immaterial whether or not the contents set G.R. No. L-33254 & G.R. No. L-33253 January 20, 1978
forth therein were false. What is important is the fact that the signature Second Division; Aquino, J.
of another was counterfeited.
Doctrine: The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified
It is a settled rule that in the falsification of public or official documents, it is document and be made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting
not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification.
third person for the reason that in the falsification of a public document, the This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so
principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be
of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Thus, the purpose for which the proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close
falsification was made and whether the offender profited or hoped to connection with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery.
profit from such falsification are no longer material. Facts: In these three cases of malversation through falsification, the
prosecution's theory is that in 1969 Licerio P. Sendaydiego, the provincial
Petitioner denies having "actually" falsified her Employees Clearance by treasurer of Pangasinan, in conspiracy with Juan Samson y Galvan, an
imitating the signature of Laura Pangilan, claiming that she had no knowledge employee of a lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City, and with
about the falsification because it was her assistant secretary, Marie Cris Anastacio Quirimit, the provincial auditor, as an accomplice, used forged
Batuampar, who worked for her Employees Clearance. provincial vouchers in order to embezzle from the road and bridge fund the
total sum of P57,048.23.
Petitioner’s denial, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, must certainly fail. In
the case at bar, petitioner did not even present as her witness Marie Cris The Provincial voucher (Voucher No. 10724 ) evidences the payment to the
Batuampar, the person whom she instructed to work for her Employees Carried Construction Supply Co. of Dagupan City for lumber and hardware
Clearance. Her failure to present this person in order to shed light on the materials supposedly used in the repair of the bridge in Barrio Libertad at the
matter was fatal to her cause
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umingan-Tayug road in Pangasinan along the Nueva Ecija boundary. The the collector of the Carried Construction Supply Co. He represented that firm
falsity of that provincial voucher is proven by the following instances: in its dealings with the offices of the governor, provincial auditor, provincial
engineer and provincial treasurer. He was personally known to those
a. That there was no project for the repair of the bridge at Barrio provincial officials and the employees of their offices (21-22 Sendaydiego's
Libertad brief).
b. That the amount of P16,727.52 was never received by the Carried
Construction Supply Co The alleged official receipt No. 3025 of the The six (6) forged provincial vouchers, with their respective supporting papers,
company dated March, 1969 is forged. were hand-carried by Samson. He delivered the papers to Carmencita
c. That the lumber and materials mentioned were never delivered by Castillo, the ledger clerk in the provincial engineer's office, for recording and
the company to the provincial government for her signature.
d. the signatures of the following office were forged: Salvador F.
Oropilla senior civil engineer; Rodolfo P. Mencias, supervising civil Thereafter, Samson brought the papers to the provincial treasurer's office.
engineer Victoriano M. Sevilleja, acting provincial engineer, and Marcelo Crusade, a laborer in that office who performed the chore of recording
Ricardo B. Probincias, chief of equipment of the governor's office. the vouchers and payrolls, recorded Vouchers Nos. 11869, 11871 and 11872
These four office denied that their signatures in the two vouchers are (Exh. P, R and S). Crusadas initials appear on the upper lefthand corner of
their genuine signatures. the said vouchers with the date 4/17/69.
e. (e) That the imprint of the rubber stamp on Exhibits A and B,
containing the words "Approved: For and By Authority of the Samson signed on the left margin of the vouchers to indicate that he
Governor (signed) Ricardo B. Primicias, Chief of Equipment", is not presented them to the provincial t r's office. Crusade said that after Samson
the imprint of the genuine rubber stamp used in Primicias office. had presented the said papers to him, Samson brought them to Ricardo
f. (f) That charge invoice No. 3327 of the Carried Construction Supply Baraan, the book-keeper of the provincial treasurer's office for processing and
Co. dated February 18, 1969 is fake because, according to Ambrosio for the latter's signature (Exh. WW).
Jabanes, the company's assistant
g. (g) That three other documents, supporting the provincial voucher
From Baraan's office, Samson hand-carried the vouchers to the provincial
(Exh. K), were also forged. Those documents are the taxpayer's cate
auditor's office. He asked Virginia Cruz, a clerk to record the same (Exh. CC).
dated February 10, 1969 (Exh. C) stating that no tax is due on the
goods sold in the fake invoice No. 3327 and the two certificates as
to the samples of lumber allegedly purchased from the Carried Afterwards, Samson asked Donato Rosete the assistant provincial treasurer,
Construction Supply Co., (Exh. D and E). Narciso P. Martinez, a to initialled the voucher After Rosete had initialled the vouchers, Samson went
district forester, denied that his signatures in Exhibits D and E are his to the provincial treasurer's office where the amounts covered by the voucher
signatures. were paid by Sendaydiego to him in cash (instead of by check) as
h. (h) That Angelo C. Manuel the checker of the provincial auditor's representative of the Carried Construction Supply Co. He received the
office, denied that his signature on the left margin is his signature payments on March 31 and April 29 and 28 (four payments on that date) as
shown on the face of the vouchers.
Samson played a stellar role in the processing of the six vouchers. He used
to be an employee of the pro treasurer's office. He resigned and worked with The signature of Sendaydiego and Quirimit, the auditor, on the said six
several firms doing business with the provincial government. In 1969 he was vouchers are admittedly authentic. Sendaydiego signed the vouchers ahead
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of Rosete, his assistant. Sendaydiego's defense is that he signed the But the expert is in error in concluding that Samson did not forge the
vouchers in the honest belief that the signatures therein of the provincial office questioned signatures or in implying that Samson had no hand in the writing
concerned were genuine because the voucher had been pre-audited and thereof.
approved by the auditor.
The truth is that Samson used two forms of signature. His supposed genuine
Samson denied the authenticity of his two signatures on each of the six signatures found in his residence certificates, income tax returns and the
vouchers showing that he received from Sendaydiego the amounts covered genuine office receipt of the Carried Construction Supply Co. are "in an arcade
thereby as representative of the lumber and hardware firm (Exh. OO to TT) form or rounded form of writing". The surname Samson is encircled.
and that he presented the vouchers to the provincial s treasurer's office.
Sendaydiego testified that Samson's signatures are genuine. On the other hand, the questioned signatures used in Samson's transactions
with the provincial government are in angular form; his surname is not
After trial the lower court acquitted the auditor, Quirimit and found encircled, and the questioned signatures terminate in angular and horizontal
Sendaydiego and Samnson guilty of malversation through falsification of strokes.
public or official documents imposing each of the following penalties
Samson was consistent in his fakeries. Knowing that the six vouchers
(Baka hanapin nyo si Sendaydiego sa kaso. Namatay na sya habang naka evidenced fictitious transactions, he used therein his fake signature, or the
appeal yung case. Si Samson na lang ang bida sa kwento na connected sa signature which is different from his signature in genuine documents. He used
Art. 171 re: Falsification -- Richard) his forged signatures in the six fake official receipts of the Carried Construction
Supply Co., stating that the amounts covered by the six vouchers were
Issue: Samson contends that the trial court erred in disregarding the expert received by him . the expert admitted that a person may have two forms of
testimony that his signatures on the vouchers are not his signature; in finding signature.
that he forged the vouchers and received the proceeds thereof.
Signatures may be deliberately disguised with the dishonest intention of
Ruling: Samson sought to prove, through Lieutenant Colonel Jose G. denying the same as and when necessary.
Fernandez, retired chief of the Constabulary crime laboratory, a handwriting
expert, that his signatures on the vouchers are not his signatures. Sendaydiego himself testified that the questioned signatures of Samson in the
six vouchers were Samson's signatures.
Fernandez found that the questioned signatures and the alleged genuine
signatures (exemplars) of Samson have fundamental differences. The expert Fernandez, the handwriting expert, declared that the questioned signatures of
concluded that the questioned signatures and the exemplar signatures of Samson in the vouchers were written by only one person.
Samson were not written by one and the same person.
The evidence conclusively proves that Samson, as the representative or
After examining the questioned and genuine signatures and analysing the collector of the supposed creditor, Carried Construction Supply Co., hand-
evidence and contentions of the parties, we find that the expert is correct in carried the vouchers in question to the offices of the provincial engineer,
declaring that (as admitted by the trial court) there are radical differences treasurer and auditor and then back to the treasurer's office for payment. He
between the questioned and authentic signatures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actually received the cash payments. Under those circumstances, Samson is
presumed to be the forger of the vouchers. CASE 39: DOMINGO v. PEOPLE (Gasapo)
Citation: G.R. No. 186101
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and be Third Division
made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is Doctrine: Essentially, the elements of the crime of Falsification of Commercial
especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely Document under Art. 172 are:
connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven (1) that the offender is a private individual;
to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection (2) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification; and
with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery. (U.S. vs. Castillo, (3) (3) that the act of falsification is committed in a commercial
6 Phil., 453; People vs. De Lara, 45 Phil. 754; People vs. Domingo, 49 Phil. document.
28; People vs. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338 People vs. Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253).
If a person has in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it,
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession taking advantage of it and profiting from it, the presumption is that he is the
of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger. material author of the falsification.
Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in falsification of a

Samson's use of one form of signature for his crooked transactions with
commercial document, because what the law seeks to repress is the prejudice
the provincial government and another form of signatures of his valid
to the public confidence in such documents.
transactions or papers shows the deviousness of the falsifications
perpetrated in these cases.
Facts:
Penalties. — The trial court and the assumed that three complex crimes of RTC: 17 counts of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Document
malversation through falsification of public documents were committed in this CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC
case. That assumption is wrong.
Being the wife of the best friend of Remedios son, petitioner had a close
The crimes committed in these three cases are not complex. Separate crimes relationship with Remedios and her family. On June 15, 1995, Remedios
of falsification and malversation were committed. These are not cases where accompanied petitioner to BPI because the latter wanted to open an account
the execution of a single act constitutes two grave or less grave felonies or therein. Remedios then introduced petitioner to the banks staff and officers.
where the falsification was used as a means to commit malversation. Soon thereafter, petitioner frequented Remedios office and volunteered to
deposit her checks in her bank account at BPI.
In the six vouchers the falsification was used to conceal the malversation. It is
settled that if the falsification was resorted to for the purpose of hiding the Sometime in October 1996, Remedios wanted to buy a car thinking that she
malversation, the falsification and malversation are separate offenses. already had a substantial amount in her account. Thus, she went to BPI to
withdraw two hundred thousand pesos (PhP 200,000). To her surprise,
B. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act however, she found out that her money had already been withdrawn. The
or proceeding whn they did not in fact so participate withdrawals were effected through 18 encashment slips bearing her forged
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
signatures reaching the amount of eight hundred thirty-eight thousand pesos in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of
(PhP 838,000). She denied having affixed her signatures on the encashment commercial document. The acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 are:
slips used.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary
Testimonies showed that on several occasions beginning September 18, or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a
1995 until October 18, 1996, petitioner presented a number of encashment fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
slips of various amounts to BPI, and by virtue of which she was able to public officer, employee or notary who, taking advantage of
withdraw huge amounts of money from the checking account of the his official position, shall falsify a document by committing
complainant. She deposited the bigger portion of these amounts to her own any of the following acts:
account and pocketed some of them, while also paying the rest to Skycable.
The transactions were processed by four tellers of BPI, namely: Regina 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
Ramos, Mary Antonette Pozon, Sheila Ferranco, and Kim Rillo who verified signature, or rubric;
the signatures of the complainant on the questioned encashment slips. 2. Causing it to appear that persons have
After having been apprised of the illegal transactions of petitioner on participated in any act or proceeding when
complainants account, the latter complained to the bank for allowing the they did not in fact participate;
withdrawal of the money with the use of falsified encashment slips and 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in
demanded that the amount illegally withdrawn be returned. She was required an act or proceeding statements other than
by BPI to submit checks bearing her genuine signature for examination by the those in fact made by them;
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. After examination, 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of
Josefina dela Cruz of the PNP Crime Laboratory came up with a finding that facts;
complainants signatures on the questioned encashment slips had been 5. Altering true dates;
forged. Only then did the bank agree to pay her the amount of PhP 645,000 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
representing a portion of the amount illegally withdrawn with the use of the genuine document which changes its
forged encashment slips. meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
Remedios and BPI filed a complaint before the prosecutor’s office. Upon purporting to be a copy of an original
motion by the prosecution, the 17 cases were consolidated and tried jointly by document when no such original exists, or
the trial court. including in such copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine
Issue: Whether or not the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient original; or
to establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry
Ruling: The evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient. or official book. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) punishes any private individual
who commits any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 of the Code Essentially, the elements of the crime of Falsification of Commercial
Document under Art. 172 are: (1) that the offender is a private individual;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification; and (3) they were presented to the bank in order to defraud the bank or holder of the
that the act of falsification is committed in a commercial document. account.
As borne by the records, all the elements of the crime are present in the Moreover, it cannot be said that since none of the prosecution witnesses saw
instant case. Petitioner is a private individual who presented to the the falsification actually done by petitioner, she cannot be held liable. The
tellers of BPI 17 forged encashment slips on different dates and of bank tellers who processed the illegal transactions of petitioner involving the
various amounts. The questioned encashment slips were falsified by account of Remedios were consistent in their testimonies that it was petitioner
petitioner by filling out the same and signing the name of the private herself who presented the encashment slips and received the proceeds of the
complainant, thereby making it appear that Remedios signed the slips. In such a situation, the applicable rule is that if a person has in his
encashment slips and that they are genuine in all respects, when in fact possession a falsified document and he made use of it, taking advantage
petitioner knew very well that Remedios never signed the subject of it and profiting from it, the presumption is that he is the material
encashment slips. author of the falsification. In the instant case, petitioner has failed to
overthrow the presumption.
In her testimony, Remedios categorically denied having filled out and signed
any of the subject encashment slips on the dates indicated on them. Her Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the questioned encashment
testimony is further strengthened by the testimonies of the bank manager and slips are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general,
the bank tellers, who facilitated the banking transactions carried out by documents or instruments which are used by merchants or
petitioner with their branch. Their testimonies were coherent and consistent in businessmen to promote or facilitate trade. An encashment slip
narrating that it was indeed petitioner who presented the encashment slips, necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose
received the proceeds of the transactions, and/or caused the transfer of the name and signature appears thereon to encash a check and withdraw
money to her own bank account. the amount indicated therein.
Typically, such inconspicuous divergences noted by dela Cruz on the Even more, petitioner would have this Court believe that the crime of
questioned signatures could not be easily detected by untrained eyes or by falsification of a commercial document did not exist because Remedios and
one who had no formal training in handwriting examination; thus, resort to the BPI did not suffer any damage. Such argument is specious. It has been ruled
opinion of an expert is imperative. This explains why the bank tellers who that damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in falsification
processed the illegal transactions entered into by the petitioner on the account of a commercial document, because what the law seeks to repress is the
of Remedios failed to notice the forgery or falsification. As a result, they prejudice to the public confidence in such documents.
allowed the encashment by petitioner. The training or skill, if any, of the tellers
in detecting forgeries is usually minimal or inadequate and their opinion is Therefore, the acts of petitioner clearly satisfy all the essential elements of the
generally unreliable. It was, therefore, prudent on the part of the bank to seek crime of Falsification of Commercial Document. In the case before us, all the
the opinion of an expert to determine the genuineness of the signatures in the elements of estafa are present. Once petitioner acquired the possession
encashment slips. of the amounts she encashed by means of deceit, she misappropriated,
misapplied, and converted the same to her own personal use and
As found by the trial court, the totality of the testimonies of Remedios, dela benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the private complainant and BPI.
Cruz, the handwriting expert, and the bank tellers bears the earmarks of truth
that the questioned encashment slips had been falsified by petitioner and that
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a doubt, the falsification of the encashment slips was a regular administrator, upon filing and approval by this Court of an
necessary means to commit estafa. At that time, the offense of Administrators Bond.
falsification is already considered consummated even before the
Nicolas filed a motion for the approval of his bond. Santiago and his brother
falsified document is used to defraud another.
Jose Ma. Villaruz opposed Nicolas motion and prayed that Jose Maria be
instead appointed regular administrator. Attached to their opposition was a
Therefore, the trial court aptly convicted petitioner for the complex crime of
certification, executed by their mother Remedios before she passed away,
Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Document.
authorizing Santiago to take possession of and/or to manage her nipa lands,
which were then in his care, for a period of 20 years or during her lifetime,
C. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
whichever was longer. Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz also gave Santiago the
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them
option of leasing the properties for P120,000.00 a year plus land taxes. The
oppositors likewise submitted an agreement, executed by the three children
CASE 40: MENDOZA-ARCE vs. OMBUDSMAN (Gatdula)
of Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz, in which they agreed to honor the lease until
G.R. No. 149148. April 5, 2002
August 23, 2008.
SECOND DIVISION
In an order, Judge Patricio denied the oppositors opposition, while
Doctrine: Criminal intent must be shown in felonies committed by means of recognizing the validity of the certification executed by Remedios Bermejo-
dolo, such as falsification. Villaruz and the agreement of the heirs, and stated that the administration of
the new administrator was subject to them. No mention of the agreement was,
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari to annul the resolution, dated April 20, however, made in the dispositive portion of the order, which simply read:
2001, of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), finding a prima facie case
for violation of 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) WHEREFORE, premises considered, for lack of merit,
and Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner Susan Mendoza- oppositors Opposition and Motion dated July 15, 1998 is
Arce, and the order, dated June 29, 2001, denying her motion for denied, while action on petitioners Motion to Approve
reconsideration. Administrators Bond dated July 1, 1998 is held in abeyance
until after petitioner submits to this Court, within ten (10)
Santiago B. Villaruz is one of the oppositors in Special Proceeding, entitled In days from receipt of this order, an updated certification from
the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Remedios Bermejo-Villaruz, the Supreme Court to the effect that the Philippine Phoenix
deceased, v. Nicolas P. Villaruz.[1] The case, originally assigned to the Surety & Insurance, Inc. has no pending obligation and/ or
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Roxas City, of which Judge Roger B. liability to the government insofar as confiscated bonds in
Patricio was presiding judge, was later re-assigned to Branch 19 of the same civil and criminal cases are concerned.
court, presided over by Judge (now Justice of the Court of Appeals) Sergio
Pestao.[2] On October 12, 1998, Judge Sergio Pestao, to whom the case was in the
meantime reassigned, approved the administrators bond of respondent
Santiago was originally the administrator of the estate of his mother Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr.
Remedios Bermejo Villaruz. However, he was removed as such for patent
neglect of his legal duties and failure to comply with the court orders. In his After receiving a copy of Judge Pestaos order, respondent Susan Mendoza-
place, respondents eldest brother, Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr., was appointed Arce, Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, prepared a
Letter of Administration (LOA) which read:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: Graft Investigation Officer Estrela Alma A. Singco stated that the allegations
That by order of this Court dated October 12, 1998, issued in the complaint warrant further investigation and recommended that petitioner
by Honorable Sergio Pestao, Judge of the Regional Trial be ordered to file her counter-affidavit.
Court, Branch 19, Roxas City, Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. has
Petitioner admitted issuing the LOA in favor of Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. She
been appointed Administrator of the estate of Remedios
claimed, however, that she acted in compliance with the order of Presiding
Bermejo-Villaruz, deceased, with full authority to take
Judge Sergio Pestao and that, in preparing the LOA, she merely adopted the
possession of all property/ies of said deceased in any
legal form prescribed in the Manual for Clerks of Court, which had been
province or provinces in which it may be situated and to
approved by this Court. She said she issued the LOA in line [with] my official
perform all other acts necessary for the preservation of said
functions which [are] ministerial in nature and devoid of any bad faith and with
property, he having filed a bond satisfactory to the Court.
manifest partiality
Said Administrator shall within three months from the date
of this appointment return to the Court a true inventory and Ricardo A. Rebollido, Graft Investigation Officer II, found probable cause
appraisal of the real and personal estate of the deceased against petitioner. Based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits submitted by
which have come into his possession or knowledge and the parties, he found petitioner guilty of the charge by making it appear that it
shall render a true and just account of his administration to was Judge Pestao, instead of Judge Patricio, who had appointed Nicolas B.
the Court within one year and at any other time when Villaruz as administrator, without regard to the lease agreement in favor of
required by the Court. respondent Santiago B. Villaruz. The Graft Investigation Officer found that
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign and seal these presents in although petitioners duties were ministerial, she should have read the order
Roxas City, Philippines, this 16th day of October 1998. recognizing the lease.
(sgd.) Susan Mendoza-Arce
(t)SUSAN MENDOZA-ARCE The Office of the Ombudsman found a prima facie case against Petitioner.
Susan Mendoza-Arce was charged with Falsification by a Public Officer under Issue: W/N Petitioner is guilty of Falsification under Art. 171 of the RPC.
Art. 171 (3) of the RPC, for stating in the Letter of Administration that Nicolas Ruling: NO. The Office of the Ombudsman found a prima facie case for
B. Villaruz, Jr. had been appointed administrator by Judge Sergio Pestao falsification under Article 171, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code against
when what the latter did was to approve the administrators bond; and Violation petitioner because she stated in the letter of administration that Nicolas B.
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) Villaruz, Jr. had been appointed administrator by Judge Sergio Pestao when
Santiago also accused Petitioner of acting with manifest partiality, evident bad what the latter did was to approve the administrators bond.
faith and gross inexcusable negligence by falsely attributing to Judge Pestao We disagree with the Ombudsmans findings. Art. 171, par. 3 of the Revised
the appointment of Nicolas B. Villaruz as new administrator and investing him Penal Code provides:
with full authority to take possession of all property/ies of the decedent,
because the fact was that it was Judge Patricio who had appointed Nicolas Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastical minister.
administrator of the estate subject to the terms and conditions of the lease The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be
agreement in favor of respondent Santiago B. Villaruz. Respondent claimed imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage
that he had been deprived of income in the amount of P33,000.00 every week, of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
as well as of the bancas and boats used in his business, as a result of the following acts:
issuance of the order in question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding 10. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused
statements other than those in fact made by them. and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied.
Criminal intent must be shown in felonies committed by means of dolo, such

as falsification. In this case, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the D. Making untruthful Statements in a narration of facts
requisite criminal intent or mens rea was present. Petitioner prepared the letter
of administration on the basis of the order of Judge Pestao, dated October 12, CASE 41: DENNIS MANGANGEY, GABRIEL WANASON and ANSELMO
1998, approving the administrators bond filed by Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. By the FORAYO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (5th Division) and PEOPLE (Gementiza)
approval of his bond, Nicolas B. Villaruz, Jr. qualified as administrator so that GR No. 147773-74, February 18, 2007
in a sense, therefore, the statement in the letter of administration [t]hat by Velasco, J.
order of this Court dated October 12, 1998, issued by Honorable Sergio
Pestao, Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Roxas City, Nicolas B. Doctrine: Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
Villaruz, Jr. has been appointed Administrator of the estate of Remedios
Bermejo-Villaruz, deceased is correct. There was nothing willful or felonious Facts: Sometime in October 1986, the Municipality of Paracelis, Mountain
in petitioners act warranting her prosecution for falsification. Province undertook the widening and partial relocation of the Banilag-Minoli
Road. The project was awarded to private contractor Leon Acapen.
(Note: Just in case itanong ni JT. – Ivan)
Exceptions to non-interference in the conduct of preliminary The project was allegedly completed on December 8, 1986 as shown in the
investigations: Certificate of Inspection and Acceptance. The certificate was prepared and
signed by Construction and Maintenance Foreman of the Office of the
1. When necessary to afford adequate protection to the Provincial Engineer, Dennis Mangangey. He attested that he personally
constitutional rights of the accused; inspected the project and that it was 100% completed in accordance with the
2. When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to agreed specifications. The other accused who were also public officers all
avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; attested that they personally inspected the work done by Leon. The
Government issued a check for P106,970 as payment for the project.
3. When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;
Sometime in February 1989, Simon Naigsan wrote to Regional Office of
4. When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
Commission of Audit and complained about the anomalies in the construction
5. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or of the road. An actual site inspection was then made by Engr. Angluben and
regulation; in his affidavit he attested thereto that the facts in the certificates of inspection
and acceptance were false.
6. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense; Thereafter, a criminal case of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents
was filed before the Sandiganbayan against Wandag (Mayor or Paracelis),
8. Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; Forayo (then a Municipal Revenue Clerk), Wanason (then Municipal Planning
and Development Coordinator), Mangangey (then Maintenance Foreman,
9. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the
Office of the Provincial Engineer) and Leon Acapen (the private contractor).
lust for vengeance;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to Falsification of public documents, the Supreme Court said “there is no
All the accused pleaded not guilty except Wandag who took flight to the United question that petitioners were public officials and employees performing their
States. official duty when they certified in a public document that they inspected and
found that the road was 100% complete per contract specifications. The
Sandiganbayan: conclusion that could be drawn is that the Banilag-Minoli Road was far from
finished at the time the certification were signed by petitioners and when they
The Sandiganbayan found that the signatories of the Certificate of Inspection government paid for the road project”.
and Acceptance, namely Mangangey, Wanason, Forayo and the late
Bernardo, in their own official functions falsified a public document when they As to the requirement that the accused had a legal obligation to disclose the
attested that they personally inspected the work of Leon and reported that it truth of the facts narrated, suffice it to say that a Certificate of Inspection and
was 100% completed in accordance with the plan, specifications and contract Acceptance is required in the processing of vouchers for the payment of
requirements notwithstanding that the project was not yet finished. The government projects. Patently, the falsification of this document by the
Sandiganbayan found the petitioners conspired with Wandag to defraud the petitioners caused the release of the payment for an unfinished road at great
Government. cost to the government.
As for Leon Acapen, the Sandibaganbayan acquitted said accused on ground As to Elements of estafa, Supreme Court said that all were duly proven (Art.
of reasonable doubt. 315 par.2).The falsification were made during the commission of the crime.
The falsified certificates of inspection and acceptance resulted in the
Contention of Petitioners before the SC: government paying for the unfinished project to the disadvantage and injury
of the State. Altogether, the elements of the complex crime of estafa through
From the evidence submitted, it has not been established that petitioners falsification of public document are present.
conspired to falsify documents to defraud the government. They posit that
aside from the lone circumstances that the government paid for an incomplete As to question of conspiracy, the Supreme Court said that: “the concerted acts
project, no other evidence or circumstance was adduced to prove that they of the co-conspirators resulted in the processing and release of the payment
indeed conspired with Wandag. No proof that they had knowledge of for an unfinished road to the disadvantage and damage to the government.
Wandag’s criminal intent to defraud the government as it was established that The circumstances based on the facts proven by the prosecution, pointing to
Wandag alone committed the offense. They also point out that it was Wandag Wandag and petitioners as conspiring to defraud the Government.
alone who benefited from the crime as petitioners were never shown to have
shared the proceeds with Wandag. E. Altering true Dates
*Petitioners filed Motion for Reconsideration before Sandingabayan: Denied. CASE 42: PEOPLE vs PANTALEON (Gelomina)
Lack of Merit. G.R. Nos. 158694-96, March 13, 2009
Brion, J.
*Case brought to SC: Filed Petition for Review under Rule 45
Facts: Appellants Teofilo G. Pantaleon, Jr. (Pantaleon) and Jaime F. Vallejos
Ruling: Petition denied. (Vallejos), former Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer, respectively, of
the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales were charged and found guilty
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of malversation of public funds
through falsification of public documents. On re-direct examination, Engr. Ramos explained that Pantaleon and
Vallejos instructed him to place dates earlier than March 1998 in the
The joint affidavit-complaints alleged that the appellants, Ken Swan Tiu, and three (3) programs of work, although he prepared them only in March
Engr. Ramos conspired to illegally disburse and misappropriate the public 1998.
funds of the Municipality of Castillejos, Zambales in the amounts of
P166,242.72 (under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-328), P154,634.27 Aurelio, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Castillejos, testified that no
(under Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9803-349), and P90,464.21 (under market stall was constructed in the public market in 1998 and 1999, and no
Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9804-415), by falsifying the supporting upgrading, excavation, and back filling of any barangay road likewise took
documents relating to three (3) fictitious or ghost construction projects, place in 1998 in Castillejos. He added that no infrastructure project could have
namely: (a) the upgrading of barangay roads in Barangays Looc, Nagbayan, been made in January 1998 because it was an election period.
Magsaysay, and San Pablo; (b) the upgrading of barangay roads in
Barangays Looc proper-Casagatan, Nagbayan proper-Angeles, and San Nida, the senior bookkeeper of Castillejos, testified that vouchers were all
Pablo-Sitio San Isidro; and (c) the construction of market stalls at the public approved by Pantaleon, although they did not pass through her office for pre-
market of Castillejos. audit. She likewise explained that the certification of the accountant and the
budget officer were necessary even if the funds were sourced from the
The affidavit-complaints further alleged that the disbursement vouchers were development fund.
not signed by the municipal accountant and budget officer; that the
Sangguniang Bayan did not adopt a resolution authorizing Pantaleon to enter Ken Swan Tiu (also known as Sonny Tiu, Tiu Ken Swan and Ken Swan Lee
into a contract with La Paz Construction and/or Ken Swan Tiu; and that no Tiu), owner of the La Paz Construction, testified that he did not enter into
projects were actually undertaken by the Municipality of Castillejos. any negotiated contract with the Municipality of Castillejos, and that his
company never received any payment from the municipality. He stated that
Evidence for the Prosecution the signatures in the vouchers were not his, and reiterated that he did not have
Engr. Ramos testified that he prepared three (3) programs of work upon the any transaction with the Municipality of Castillejos. He added that he has no
instructions of Vallejos. The first two (2) programs of work, dated January 5, agent to collect or enter into transactions in his behalf.
1998 and January 14, 1998, respectively, were for the upgrading of barangay
roads; the third, also dated January 5, 1998, was for the construction of market SANDIGANBAYAN: convicted them as charged
stalls. He declared that he never implemented any of these projects. He later MEANWHILE: Pantaleon was granted conditional pardon, he move to
discovered that these projects had already been implemented by the previous withdraw his appeal which was subsequently granted by the SC. Thus, this
municipal engineer; hence, the programs of work and subsequent Decision at this point relates solely to appellant Vallejos.
disbursements were not really needed.
In his brief, appellant Vallejos argued, among others, that the Sandiganbayan
On cross-examination, he stated that he was asked to prepare the programs erred
of work in March 1998; that he submitted the programs upon completion to
Vallejos who told him that he (Vallejos) would give them to Pantaleon for 1. in convicting him of the crime charged despite merely occupying a salary
approval. He assumed the programs of work were disapproved because grade (SG) 24 position; (ruling by SC: Pantaleon is salary grade 27, hence,
nobody coordinated with him regarding their implementation. Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. in convicting him of the crime charged despite the absence of notice to There is sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence. The essential elements common
restitute from the Provincial Auditor of Zambales; to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are
3. in convicting him of the crime charged despite merely acting ministerially the following:
on the disbursement vouchers in question; and (a) That the offender be a public officer - Appellants are public officers
4. in finding that a conspiracy existed between him and Pantaleon. (Ruling: (b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of
there was conspiracy) the duties of his office – yes, as treasurer and municipal mayor
(c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which
Issue: Is he guilty of malversation of public funds through falsification of public he was accountable – the funds were sourced from development
documents.? YES funds of the municipality, hence they are public funds to which the
appellants are accountable
Ruling related to our topic: (d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or,
 Falsification was a necessary means to commit the crime of through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to
malversation take them – the projects did not materialize
Falsification under paragraph 2 is committed when (a) the offender causes it F. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a changes its meaning
proceeding; and (b) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate
in the act or proceeding. CASE 43: AVELLA GARCIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Groyon)
G.R. No. 128213, December 13, 2005
In the present case, both testimonial and documentary evidence showed that
Vallejos filled up the spaces for the voucher number and the accounting entry Facts: Sometime in early October 1990, a verbal agreement was entered
of Disbursement Voucher Nos. 101-9803-328, 101-9803-349 and 10-9804- into between Alberto Quijada, Jr. (Alberto) and Avella for the sale of the
415. These items were required to be filled up by Nida as the municipal formers house and lot for the purchase price of P1.2 million pesos. On
accountant. Thus, Vallejos made it appear that the municipal accountant October 23, 1990, an earnest money in the amount of ten thousand pesos
participated in signing the disbursement vouchers. (P10,000) was given to Alberto by Avella. On October 31, 1990, the amount
of one hundred and fifty-five thousand pesos (P155,000) was delivered by
The appellants were likewise guilty of falsification under paragraph 5 of Article Avella representing this time the downpayment for the house and lot. A
171. Engr. Ramos testified that Pantaleon and Vallejos instructed him to place subsequent payment of five thousand pesos (P5,000) was made on January
the dates January 5, 1998 on the first and third programs of work, and January 21, 1991. With respect to this last transaction, Avella prepared in her own
14, 1998 on the second program of work, although he prepared the programs handwriting two identical receipts.
only in March 1998. Thereafter, the appellants affixed their signatures on
these programs of work. The projects covered by these programs of work The two receipts were signed by Alberto and his sister Alicia Q. Gonzales,
served as basis for the issuance of the disbursement voucher. as witness. One receipt was given to Alberto, while the other was retained
by Avella.
AS TO THE CRIME OF MALVERSATION
The relationship between buyer and seller turned sour. Avella filed a complaint
for estafa against Alberto for his failure to execute a deed of sale and deliver
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the subject property. Among the evidence she submitted was the copy of the the money. Avella said she showed the altered receipt to Alberto but that
receipt she prepared on January 21, 1991. However, the receipt appeared to he was not able to affix his signature thereon because he was in a hurry
have been altered in the following manner: 1) the word fifty was inserted to leave. Avellas account was corroborated by the testimony of Celso
before the word five on the second line of the receipt to read fifty five thousand who declared that all these happened in his presence.
instead of five thousand; 2) the number 5 was inserted before 5,000.00 on the
third line of the receipt so that it would read 55,000.00; 3) additional words The trial court found Avellas account unworthy of belief. The court stated in
were inserted in the last sentence of the receipt which reads, Now covered by its decision that if, by her claim, she made the changes in the receipt while
T.C.T. # 3998 R.D. Mandaluyong MM. the parties agree to execute of [sic] Alberto was counting the money it would not have taken more than five (5)
valid deed of conveyance covering the same sale; 4) on the date January 21 seconds to affix his signature thereon even if he was in a hurry to leave. The
the number 4 was superimposed so that it would read as January 24 instead; trial court, thus, held that the elements of Article 172 (2), in relation to Article
and 5) there now appears the amount of 55,000.00 and below it the word 171 (6), of the Revised Penal Code have been proven beyond reasonable
value on the upper left hand corner of the receipt. doubt.
Having noticed the alterations, Alberto instituted a criminal action before the Avella appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the penalty
Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City charging that Avella had made it by lowering it, but affirmed the conviction.
appear that he received P55,000 when he received only P5,000.
Issue: WON Avella’s testimony as to why alteration was made is sufficient to
Avella, in her defense, admitted that she did in fact alter the receipt but claims acquit him of the crime of falsification under Art 171 (6)
that it was done in the presence and at the request of Alberto. Her account is
as follows: Ruling: The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171 (6) of the
Revised Penal Code are:
On January 21, 1991, Alberto, along with his sister, came to Avellas residence
in Mandaluyong City to ask for additional downpayment for the house and lot. (1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a
At that time she only had P5,000 in cash which she handed over to Alberto document;
and then promised him a bigger sum in the future. Avella then hand wrote two (2) that it was made on a genuine document;
receipts which was signed by Alberto and his sister, as evidence of the (3) that the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the
payment of P5,000. One receipt was her copy while the other was for Alberto. document; and
Three days later, on January 24, 1991, Avella called up Mr. Celso Cunanan (4) that the changes made the document speak something false.
(Celso), an architect, from whom she asked to borrow P50,000. Celso had
earlier committed to Avella that he would lend her P50,000. Celso arrived at When these are committed by a private individual on a private document the
her house that evening to give her the money. Already present in the house violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of the same code, but
were Avella, her sister and Alberto. Celso delivered to Avella P50,000 which there must be, in addition to the aforesaid elements, independent evidence
the latter, in the formers presence, handed over to Alberto. With respect to of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person.
the alteration, Avella explained that Alberto did not have with him his
copy of the January 21, 1991 receipt and so he told her to just add in her Given the admissions of Avella that she altered the receipt, and without
copy the amount of P50,000 to make it P55,000. Avella acceded to the convincing evidence that the alteration was with the consent of private
request and made the changes in front of Alberto while he was counting complainant, the Court holds that all four (4) elements have been proven
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
beyond reasonable doubt. As to the requirement of damage, this is readily
apparent as it was made to appear that Alberto had received P50,000 when During the session of the Sangguniang Panglungsod the Council was
in fact he did not. Hence, Avellas conviction. presented with the Minutes for the sessions held on June 23, 30, July 14 and
21, respectively. The minutes of said sessions reflected resolutions and
G. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a ordinances allegedly taken up, deliberated and passed upon by the
copy of an original document purporting to be a copy, etc. Sangguniang Panglungsod namely: Resolution 50-A on June 23, 1988,
Resolution 56 and 56-A on June 30, Resolution No. 63 and 61 on July 14,
CASE 44: ELENO T. REGIDOR, JR. and CAMILO B. ZAPATOS vs. Resolution 64 and 68 on July 21. The actual copies of the Resolutions,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) Appropriations and Ordinances all contained the signatures of the four (4)
(Guno) accused and approving the same.
G.R. Nos. 166086-92, February 13, 2009
However, some of the Council Members questioned the validity of the said
Doctrine: In falsification of a public document, the falsification need not be Resolutions and Ordinances. They alleged that the Resolutions and
made on an official form. It is sufficient that the document is given the Ordinances were neither taken up, deliberated nor passed upon during the
appearance of, or made to appear similar to the official form. above-mentioned dates. Roberto O. Taclob, private complainant, testified that
the questioned Resolutions were not taken up and thus could not have been
Facts: Petitioners, along with Aniceto T. Siete, former Vice-Mayor, and one deliberated nor passed upon. His testimony was corroborated by prosecution
Marlene L. Mangao,[3] then Acting Secretary of the Sangguniang witnesses, Estrelita M. Pastrano, Elizabeth L. Duroy Albarico and Agustin L.
Panglungsod of Tangub City, were charged with the crime of falsification of Opay, all former members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Tangub City
public documents. [private complainants]. Although the questioned resolutions were
subsequently ratified by the Sanggunian through Resolution by a vote of five
Evidence for the Prosecution (5) to four (4), with the four (4) complaining witnesses abstaining, dated
The accused are all public officers in the City Government of Tangub City. October 15, 1988, the Council Members still filed criminal complaints with the
Accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. was then the incumbent Mayor who assumed Sandiganbayan.
office on May 5, 1988, while accused Aniceto T. Siete as the incumbent Vice-
Mayor and Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod. Accused Evidence for the Defense
Camilo B. Zapatos was the Acting Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang In his defense, Mayor Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. testified that before approving
Panglungsod, while accused Marlene L. Mangao, who was a clerk in the resolutions or ordinances, he consults his legal counsel to check if there are
Office of the Mayor, was designated as Acting Secretary of the City Council any irregularities in the resolutions and whether or not the resolutions are
during the period corresponding to the alleged commission of the crimes beneficial to the City of Tangub. He also stated that he did not attend or
charged against the accused. participate in the sessions of the City Council, asserting that, as Mayor, he did
not, in any way, influence the deliberations of the Sanggunian. He stressed
When accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. assumed the mayoral post it has been that the Sangguniang Panglungsod is totally independent of his office and as
the practice that the proposals for resolutions and ordinances originated from the approving officer of the Municipal Government, he relies on the
him or his office. Often, when a proposal is put in the agenda of the certification of the Presiding Officer that the resolutions and the ordinances
Sangguniang Panglungsod, a prepared resolution is already available so that are valid and lawful before affixing his signature. The accused, Eleno T.
it will be easier for the City Council to just accept or adopt the resolutions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regidor, Jr. contends that he signed the questioned resolutions in good faith 2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and 3) that he falsifies a
and with the belief that they were deliberated and passed upon. document by committing any of the aforementioned acts. Likewise, in
falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be
It is further contended by accused Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. that the questioned present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the
Resolutions were taken up and passed upon during the sessions. The same falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of the public
accused further claimed that the minutes of the sessions of the Sanggunian faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
were inaccurate since the entire proceedings were not completely and
accurately taken down by the stenographer or Council Secretary present All elements of the offense punishable under Article 171, paragraphs 2 and 7
during the meetings, thus, the deliberations on the questioned resolutions of the Revised Penal Code are present in this case.
were not entirely recorded. Lastly, the same accused claimed that the
complainants even admitted in their Affidavit of Desistance the inaccuracy of In the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or
the minutes "x x x although the matters taken during the sessions of the by private persons, it is not that there be present the idea of gain or intent to
Sangguniang Panglungsod wherein we were present, were discussed and injure a third person. Verily, the pieces of evidence reveal the specific acts of
deliberated upon, we are not sure whether or not said deliberations and the four (4) accused in the commission of the crime of falsification.
discussions were recorded in the minutes x x x." The defense of the accused
Eleno T. Regidor, Jr. is corroborated by the testimony of Rogelio Taburada, Firstly, the accused caused it to appear in a document that members of the
[Taburada] who was then a Councilor of Tangub City. Sangguniang Panglungsod participated in the sessions, deliberations and
Sandiganbayan’s Decision: Guilty as charged. passed the questioned resolutions. The said resolutions reflect the attendance
of all the members of the Sanggunian on the dates thereon, including their
Issue: Whether or not petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt unanimous approval of the resolutions. The pieces of evidence and the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, however, reveal otherwise. If, in
Held: YES. truth and in fact, Resolutions 50-A, 56, 56-A, 63, 61, 64 and 68 were indeed
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or taken up and passed upon on their respective dates, it would be contrary to
ecclesiastic minister. —…Any public officer, employee, or notary human reason why the members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod who
who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a approved it unanimously, to suddenly file a case against the accused and
document by committing any of the following acts: deny the existence of a legislative act they authored.
…..
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act Secondly, the accused are found to have committed the act of issuing in
or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; authenticated form, a document purporting to be a copy of an original
…. document when no such document exists. In issuing the subject Resolutions,
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a Mayor Eleno T. Regidor, Jr., Vice-Mayor Aniceto T. Siete and SP Camilo B.
copy of an original document when no such original exists, or Zapatos, consummated the crime of falsification by purporting them to be
including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, original copies of valid, deliberated and approved resolutions when no such
that of the genuine original; documents exist and no proceedings regarding them ever took place as
established by the prosecution. In falsification of a public document, the
For falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements falsification need not be made on an official form. It is sufficient that the
must concur: 1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
document is given the appearance of, or made to appear similar to the The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172, paragraph
official form. 2 of the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except
Third. Petitioners were public officers at the time of the commission of the those in paragraph 7, Article 171;
offenses charged. Mayor Regidor was then Mayor of Tangub City, while (2) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and
Zapatos was a member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and was a (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the
Temporary Presiding Officer thereof. falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.
Fourth. The petitioners took advantage of their respective official positions As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private
because they had the duty to make or to prepare, or otherwise to intervene in document, it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged
the preparation of the document, or have the official custody of the document with falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a
which they falsified. Zapatos, as a member and, at the time, Temporary private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime
Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, had the duty to make or to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the
prepare or intervene in the preparation of the assailed resolutions. In like necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa.
manner, Mayor Regidor cannot claim that as mayor he had no participation in (Note: This case consists of consolidated cases. – Fam)
the making, or preparation of, nor any intervention in the assailed resolutions.
Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626, and 3453
Under the law at that time, the city mayor had the power to veto the ordinances
Facts: The prosecution established that Batulanon caused the preparation of
and resolutions enacted or adopted by the Sangguniang Panglungsod.
the Cash Vouchers in the name of Omadlao and Oracion knowing that they
Contrary to Mayor Regidor's submission, the veto power confers authority
are not PCCI members and not qualified for a loan from the cooperative. In
beyond the simple mechanical act of signing an ordinance or resolution as a
the case of Arroyo, Batulanon was aware that while the former is a member,
requisite to its enforceability.
she did not apply for a loan with the cooperative.
Ruling: Batulanon’s act of falsification falls under paragraph 2 of Article 171,

FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED i.e., causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
DOCUMENTS proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. This is because by signing
(Art. 172, RPC) the name of Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos. 30A, 237A,
and 267A, respectively, as payee of the amounts appearing in the
CASE 45: BATULANON v. PEOPLE (Ignacio) corresponding cash vouchers, Batulanon made it appear that they obtained a
G.R. No. 139857. September 15, 2006 loan and received its proceeds when they did not in fact secure said loan nor
Division receive the amounts reflected in the cash vouchers.
Doctrines: Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through Criminal Case No. 3627
falsification of commercial document, appellant could be convicted of
falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the Facts: The trial court convicted petitioner Batulanon for falsifying Dennis
allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and Batulanon’s signature in the cash voucher based on the Information charging
not the technical name given in the preamble of the 35 information. her of signing the name of her 3 year old son, Dennis. The records, however,
reveal that in Cash Voucher No. 374A, petitioner Batulanon did not falsify the
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: “by: lbatulanon” to indicate that the disturbance in property rights caused by Batulanon’s misappropriation is
she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said act does not in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Article 315.
fall under any of the modes of falsification under Article 171 because there in
nothing untruthful about the fact that she used the name of Dennis and that CASE 46: GUILLERGAN vs. PEOPLE (Lo)
as representative of the latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan from PCCI. G.R. No. 185493. February 2, 2011
Abad, J:
Ruling: The crime committed by Batulanon is estafa and not falsification.The
essence of falsification is the act of making untruthful or false statements, Doctrine: Accused may be convicted for an offense (fasification under Art.
which is not attendant in this case. As to whether, such representation 172) other than that charged in the Information (estafa in relation to Art. 171).
involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI is a different matter which will Although the charge was estafa in relation to Article 171 of the RPC, the facts
make her liable for estafa, but not for falsification. Hence, it was an error for alleged in the information sufficiently made out a case for violation of Article
the courts below to hold that petitioner Batulanon is also guilty of falsification 172 of which Guillergan was convicted. What is important is that the
of private document with respect 50 to Criminal Case No. 3627 involving the Information described the latter offense intelligibly and with reasonable
cash voucher of Dennis. certainty, enabling Guillergan to understand the charge against him and
The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art. suitably prepare his defense.
315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code are:
Facts: On 1995, the Office of the Ombudsman indicted petitioner Roberto K.
(1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the Guillergan for estafa through falsification of public documents. The evidence
offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under shows that sometime in 1987, petitioner Guillergan, a Lieutenant Colonel in
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to the AFP, directed Master Sergeant Edna Seclon, Chief Clerk of the
return, the same; Comptrollers Office, to cause the preparation of the payrolls of their civilian
(2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or intelligence agents (CIAs) with supporting time record and book. The agents’
property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; names were copied and, based on their appointment papers, certified as
(3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the correct by Guillergan and then approved by Brigadier General Domingo T.
prejudice of another; Rio. Each time the processing unit returned the payrolls for lack of signatures
(4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. of the payees, Guillergan would direct Technical Sergeant Nemesio H.
(Note: The 4th element is not necessary when there is evidence of Butcon, the Budget and Fiscal Non-Commissioned Officer, to affix his initial
misappropriation of the goods by the defendant.) on the Remarks/Sig column of the payrolls to complete the requirements and
facilitate the processing of the time record, book, and payrolls. Also, on
Knowing that she is no longer qualified to obtain a loan, she fraudulently
Guillergan’s instruction, the CIAs payrolls in Region 6 for 1987, totaling
used the name of her son who is likewise disqualified to secure a loan from
P732,000.00, were covered by cash advances payable to Captain Roland V.
PCCI. Her misappropriation of the amount she obtained from the loan is also
Maclang, Jr., which advances were issued upon his request as disbursing
not disputed as she even admitted receiving the same for personal use.
officer for that purpose. When ready, Guillergan received the corresponding
Although the amount received by Batulanon is reflected in the records as
cash or checks then turned them over to Rio. At the end of 1987, Rio further
part of the receivables of PCCI, damage was still caused to the latter
received P787,000.00 in administrative funds to be paid out to contractors for
because the sum misappropriated by her could have been loaned by PCCI
repairs in the men’s barracks, the firing range, the guesthouse and others. But
to qualified members, or used in other productive undertakings. At any rate,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rio requested that this administrative funds be re-aligned to intelligence funds described the latter offense intelligibly and with reasonable certainty, enabling
in order to facilitate clearing. Guillergan to understand the charge against him and suitably prepare his
defense.
On 1989, the AFP Anti-Graft Board filed a complaint against Rio, Butcon,
Maclang, Jr., Seclon, and Guillergan for violating Articles of War 94 in relation What is punished in falsification of a public document is the violation of the
to Article 217 of the RPC. public faith and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed in it.
Generally, the elements of Article 171 are:
- The Office of the Ombudsman recommended the dismissal of the case for 1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
lack of merit. 2) he takes advantage of his official position; and
-However, the Ombudsman Investigator issued a memorandum, 3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is done.
recommending the filing of charges of illegal use of public funds against Rio
and the exoneration of the other respondents. On the other hand, the elements of falsification of documents under paragraph
- The Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended the filing of charges 1, Article 172 are:
against all the accused 1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did
- Information filed: estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) in relation to Article 171 not take advantage of his official position;
of the RPC. 2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article
- Sandiganbayan Second Division: found Guillergan guilty of falsification 171; and
penalized under Article 172 of the RPC and sentenced him to suffer the 3) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial
penalty of imprisonment for 2 years and 4 months as minimum to 4 years, 9 document.
months and 10 days as maximum. The court acquitted the other accused on
the ground of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 2. All of the foregoing elements of Article 172 are present in this case. First.
Guillergan was a public officer when he committed the offense charged. He
Issues: was the comptroller to the PC/INP Command in Region 6. While the
1. WON the Sandiganbayan can convict Guillergan of violation of Article 172 Information said that he took advantage of his position in committing the crime,
of the RPC under an Information that charged him with estafa in relation to the Sandiganbayan found that his work as comptroller did not include the
Article 171 of the Code - YES preparation of the appointments and payrolls of CIAs. Nor did he have official
2. WON petitioner is guilty of the crime of falsification of public documents - custody of the pertinent documents. His official function was limited to keeping
YES the records of the resources that the command received from Camp Crame.
Still, he took the liberty of intervening in the preparation of the time record,
Ruling: book, and payrolls in question.
1. The Information alleged that Guillergan committed falsification by making it
appear in several public documents that P1,519,000.00 in AFP funds intended Second. The Information alleged that Guillergan committed the offense
for the CIAs payroll were paid for that purpose when in truth these were just charged by causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or a
given to Rio, resulting in damage and prejudice to the government. Although proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. In People v. Yanson-
the charge was estafa in relation to Article 171 of the RPC, the facts alleged Dumancas, the Court held that a person may induce another to commit a
in the information sufficiently made out a case for violation of Article 172 of crime in two ways: 1) by giving a price or offering a reward or promise; and 2)
which Guillergan was convicted. What is important is that the Information by using words of command. In this case, the Sandiganbayan found that
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guillergan ordered Butcon to sign the receive portion of the payrolls as payee of the law and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service
to make it appear that persons whose names appeared on the same had with forfeiture of all benefits due her, excluding her accrued leave benefits,
signed the document when they in fact did not. and with perpetual disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public service including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Third. There is no dispute that the falsification was committed on the time
record, book, and payrolls which were public documents. Previous convictions with the following illegal acts:
1. Respondent failed to explain why there were motions for execution of
Additionally, the appointment papers from which these payrolls were based decided cases which she had not acted upon for a considerably long time, this
do not reveal any information about the acceptance of the appointments by renders her guilty of gross inefficiency
the agents. In a letter of the Anti-Graft Board of the AFP x x x [to Ombudsman
Vasquez], it was stated that the appointment papers of the agents must be 2. Respondent failed to forward to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
accompanied by the acceptance of the agents. These papers should ordinarily (OPP) of Cavite the records of at least 370 cases which she dismissed after
be attached to the payrolls for proper clearing purposes. Since there were no preliminary investigation. Respondent justified such omission on the pretext
acceptance papers presented, it only suggests that the lists on the payrolls that her clerk of court and other court personnel secured photocopies of the
are names of ghost agents. Even more, the board made a comment that x x cases for their own file in order to help litigants who made queries regarding
x Guillergan denies knowledge of the persons appointed even if he certified their cases. (Under Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure
to the correctness of the payrolls. explicitly states that within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the preliminary
investigation, an investigating judge shall transmit to the provincial or city
The only conclusion x x x is the deliberate falsification of the payrolls; causing prosecutor for appropriate action her resolution of the case together with the
it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they records thereof). Respondent judge claims that the failure to promptly transmit
did not in fact so participate. The Court finds no error in the decision of the the resolution and records of the cases which she dismissed after preliminary
Sandiganbayan that found Guillergan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of investigation is not her fault but that of her clerk of court. However, it remains
Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172 of the RPC. the duty of a judge to devise an efficient recording and filing system in their
courts to enable them to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy
FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE CERTIFICATES OF MERITS and timely disposition.4 If respondent was diligent in the performance of her
OR SERVICE, ETC. obligations and responsibilities, the records of cases which were not
(Art. 174, RPC) forwarded to the OPP would not have reached an alarming number.
CASE 47: JUDGE ESPANOL v. JUDGE TOLEDO-MUPAS (Maranda) 3. Respondent also failed to refute the findings of the OCA that the court
records in her sala were in disarray which compromises their confidentiality
Doctrine: Falsification of one’s certificate of service, renders a public officer and integrity. Records of cases are necessarily confidential, and to preserve
not only administratively liable for serious misconduct under Section 1, Rule their integrity and confidentiality, access thereto ought to be limited only to the
140 of the Rules of Court but also criminally liable under Articles 174 and judge, the parties or their counsel and the appropriate court personnel in
175 of the Revised Penal Code charge of the custody thereof
Facts: The instant case is a Second Motion for Reconsideration over a 4. (IN RELATION TO ART. 174) Respondent in previous cases was
Decision (conviction in 3 cases) finding respondent guilty of gross ignorance charged of falsifying certificate of service that she was able to gain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent neither denied nor refuted the charge that she was able to draw
her salaries by submitting fraudulent certificates of service to the effect that
she had no undecided cases. Falsification of one’s certificate of service,
renders a public officer not only administratively liable for serious misconduct
under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court but also criminally liable under
Articles 174 and 175 of the Revised Penal Code.
5. Respondent judge continued with the practice of issuing documents

denominated “Detention Pending Investigation of the Case” even after her
attention had been called. Worse, she remained insistent in her erroneous
belief that the document was an implied waiver of the rights of the accused
under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Respondent begs the Court for compassion arguing the penalty of dismissal
is too harsh.
Issue: Whether the motion shall be granted.
Ruling: Partly granted.
The respondent judge failed to live up to the exacting standards of her office.
The magnitude of her transgressions, taken collectively, casts a heavy
shadow on respondent’s moral, intellectual and attitudinal competence and
rendered her unfit to don the judicial robe and to perform the functions of a
magistrate.
On the other hand, four members of the Court concurred as to the findings of
gross ignorance of the law but dissented as to the penalty of dismissal, opting
to impose the penalty of suspension without salaries, and other benefits for a
period of three (3) years, and a fine of P40,000.00 with a very stern warning
that a commission in the future of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt
with more severely.

A114 174 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A114 174 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Criminal Law Review (Case Digests – Book 2, RPC)

Section 4D, AY 2016-2017

As aptly pointed out by the respondents insofar as the complaint of Rodolfo

Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of

xxxx CASE 14: CRISANTO EVANGELISTA vs. TOMAS EARNSHAW (Guno)

(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers,

CASE 36: UNITED STATES vs. AMADEO CORRAL (Dimayuga)

Damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in falsification of a

Criminal intent must be shown in felonies committed by means of dolo, such

Ruling: Batulanon’s act of falsiﬁcation falls under paragraph 2 of Article 171,

5. Respondent judge continued with the practice of issuing documents

Issue: Whether the motion shall be granted.

Ruling: Partly granted.

Você também pode gostar